A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux wherein the principles of the Roman church, as to moderation, unity and truth are examined and sundry important controversies concerning the rule of faith, papal supremacy, the mass, images, &c. discussed / by John Owen.

CHAP. VIII.

Principles of Papists whereon they proceed in bringing men to a Settlement in Religion and the Vnity of Faith; examined.

YOur Plea to this purpose is blended with a dou∣ble pretence of Pope, and Church. Sometimes you tell us of the Pope and his succession to S^t Peter; And sometimes of the Church and its Authority. Some∣times you speak as if both these were one and the same; And sometimes you seem to distinguish them. Some of you, lay most weight upon the Papall suceession and Infallibility; and some on the Churches Jurisdiction and Authority. I shall crave leave to take your pleas a-sunder: and first to consider what force they have in them as unto the End whereunto they are applied, severally and apart; and then see what in their joint concurrence they can contribute thereunto. And what ever you think of it, I suppose this course of proceeding will please ingenuous persons, and Lovers of Truth; because it enables them to take a distinct view of the things whereon they are to give judgment. Whereas in your handling of them, something you suppose, something you insinuate, something you openly averr, yet so confound them with other heterogenious Dis∣courses that it can hardly be discerned what grounds you build upon. A way of proceeding, which as it argues a secret guilt and fear of bringing forth your Principles to Light, so a gross kind of Sophistry, ex∣ploded by all Masters of Reason whatsoever. They would not have us fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo

dare lucem, darken things clear and perspicuous in themselves; but to make things dark and confused, perspicuous. And the Orator tells us, that Epicu∣rus his discourse was ambiguous, because his Sententia was inhonesta, his Opinion shamefull. And to what purpose should any one contend with you about such generall ambiguous expressions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; I shall then begin with the Pope and his Infal∣libility, because you seem to lay most weight thereon and tell us plainly, pag. 379 of your Fiat, Edit, 2^d, That if the Pope be not an unerring guide in Affairs of Religion, all is lost; And that, A man once rid of his Authority, may as easily deride, and as solidly confute the Incarnation, as the Sprinkling of Holy water; so re∣solving our faith of the Incarnation of Christ into his Authority or Testimony: Yea and in the same page; That if it had not been for the Pope, Christ himself had not been taken in the world for any such Person, as he is believed this day: And p. 378. to the same purpose; The first great fundamental of Christian Religion, which is the Truth and Divinity of Christ, had it not been for him, had failed long ago in the world; with much more to the same purpose. Hence it is evident that in your judgment, all Truth and Certainty in Re∣gion depends on the Popes Anthority and Infallibili∣ty; or, as you express it, his unerring guidance. This is your Principle, this you propose as the only medium to bring us unto that Settlement in Religion, which you suppose the Scripture is not able to do. What course should we now take? would you have us believe you at the first word without further tri∣all or examination? would you have a man to do so, who never before heard of Pope or Church? We are commanded to try all things, and to hold fast that which is good; to try pretending Spirits and the Be∣raeans

are commended for examining by the Scri∣pture, what Paul himself preached unto them: An implicit Credulity given up to such Dictates, is the height of Fanaticism. Have wee not reason then to call you and your copartners in this design to an accoun ••how you prove that which you so strenu∣ously assert and suppose; and to examine the Prin∣ciples of that Authority whereunto you resolve all your faith and Religion. If upon mature consi∣deration, these prove Solid, and the Inferences you make from them Cogent, it is good Reason that you should be attended unto. If they prove otherwise; if the first be false, and the latter Sophistical; you cannot justly take it ill of him that shall advise you to take heed, that whilest you are gloriously display∣ing your Colours, the ground that you stand upon do not sink under your feet. And here you are forced to go many a step backward to fix your first footing, (untill you leave your Pope quite out of sight) from whence you advance towards him by severall de∣grees, and so arive at his Supremacie and Infallibili∣ty; and so we shall have—Reditum Diomedis ab interitu Meleagri.

1. Your first Principle to this purpose is, That Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, and that in him the Lord Jesus founded a Monarchy in his Church. So pag. 360. you call him, the head and Prince of the whole Congregation. Now this wee think no meet Principle for any one to begin withall, in asserting the foundation of Faith and Religion: Nor do we think that if it were meet so to be used, that it is any way subservient unto your design and purpose.

1. A Principle, fundamental, or first entrance into any way of Settlement in Faith or Religion, it cannot possibly be; because it presupposeth the knowledg of,

and assent unto many other great fundamental Ar∣ticles of Christian Religion; yea upon the matter all that are so: For before you can rationally talk with a man about Peters Principality, and the Monar∣chical state of the Church hereon depending, you must suppose that he believes the Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be the Word of God, and all things that are taught therein concerning Jesus Christ, his, Person, Nature, Offices, Work, and Gospell, to be certainly and infallibly true: for they are all: supposed in your Assertion; which without the knowledg of them is uncouth, hor∣rid, insignificant, and forraign to all notions that a man can rationally entertain of God or Religion: Nay no attempt of proof or confirmation can be gi∣ven unto it, but by and from Scripture, whereby you fall directly into the Principle which you seek so carefully to avoid: namely that the Scripture is the only way and means of setling us in the Truth; since you cannot settle any man in the very first pro∣position which you make to lead him into another way but by the Scripture: So powerfull is Truth, that those who will not follow it willingly, it will lead them captive in Triumph, whether they will or no.

2. It is unmeet for any purpose, because it is not true. No one word from the Scripture can you pro∣duce in its confirmation: wherein yet if it be not re∣vealed, it must pass as a very uncertain and frivolous conjecture. You can produce no suffrage of the An∣cient Church unto your purpose; which yet if you could, would not presently render any Assertion so confirmed infallibly certain, much less fundamental. Some indeed of the 4^th Century call Peter, Principem Apostolorum: but explain themselves to intend there∣by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first or Leader, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the

Prince, or Ruler. And when the ambiguity of that word began to be abused unto pretensions of Pre∣eminence, the Council of Carthage expresly con∣demned it, allowing none to be termed Princeps Sa∣cerdotum. Many in those dayes thought Peter to be among the Apostles like the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps Civi atis, the chief in their Assemblies, or Principall in dignity, how truly I know not; but that he should be amongst them and over them a Prince in Office, a Monarch as to Rule and Power, is a thing that they never once dreamed of; and the Asseveration of it is an open untruth. The Apostles were equall in their Call, Office, Place, Dignity, Employ∣ments: All the difference between them, was in their Labours, Sufferings, and Success; wherein Paul seems to have had the pre-eminence; who as Peter, and all the rest of the Apostles, every one singly and for himself, had the care of all the Churches commit∣ted unto him; thought it may be for the better dis∣charge of their Duty, ordinarily they divided their work, as they found it necessary for them to apply themselves unto it in particular. See 2 Cor. 11. And this equality between the Apostles is more than once insinuated by Paul, and that with speciall reference unto Peter, 1 Cor. 1. Gal. 1. 18, 19. ch. 2. 9. And is it not wonderfull, that if this Assertion should not only be true, but such a Truth as on which the whole faith of the Church was to be built, that the Scripture should be utterly silent of it, that it should give us no Rules about it, no directions to use and improve it, afford us no one instance of the exercise of the Power and Authority intimated, no not one? but that on the contrary it should lay down Prin∣ciples exclusive of it; Matth. 22. 25, 26. Luk. 22. 26. And when it comes to make an enumeration of all the

Offices appointed by Christ in his Church, Eph. 4. 11. should pass over the Prince and his Office in silence, on which all the rest were to depend? You see what a Foundation you begin to build upon; a meer ima∣gination, and groundless presumption which hath not the least countenance given unto it by Scripture or Antiquity. What a perplexed condition must you needs cast men into, if they shall attend unto your perswasions to rest on the Pope's unerring guidance for all their Certainty in Religion, when the first mo∣tive you propose unto them to gain their Assent, is a Proposition so far destitute of any cogent Evidence of its Truth or innate Credibility, that it is apparent∣ly false, and easily manifested so to be.

3. Were it never so true, as it is notoriously false, yet it would not one jot promote your design: It is about Peter the Apostle, and not the Pope of Rome, that we are yet discoursing. Do you think a man can easily commence per saltum, from the imaginary Principality of Peter unto the Infallibility of the pre∣sent Pope of Rome? Quid Pape cum Petro? what relation is there between the one and other? Sup∣pose a man have so good a mind unto your company, as to be willing to set out with you in this ominous stumbling at the threshold, what will you next lead him unto? You say.

II. That S^t Peter besides his Apostolical Power and Office, (wherein setting aside the prerogative of his Princedome before mentioned, the rest of the Apo∣stles were partakers with him,) had also an Oecume∣nical Episcopal Power invested in him, which was to be transmitted unto others after him. His Office pure∣ly Apostolical, you have no mind to lay claim unto. It may be, you dispair of being able to prove, that your Pope is immediately called and sent by Christ:

that he is furnished with a power of working Mira∣cles, and such other things as concurred to the con∣stitution of the Office Apostolical: and perhaps himself hath but little mind to be exercised in the discharge of that Office, by travelling up and down, poor, despised, persecuted, to preach the Gospel: Monarchy, Rule, Supremacie, Authority, Jurisdi∣ction, Infallibility, are words that better please him: And therefore have you mounted this Notion of Pe∣ters Episcopacy, whereunto you would have us think that all the fine things you so love and dote upon, are annexed. Poor, labouring, perfected Peter the Apostle, may die and be forgotten: but Peter the Bi∣shop, harnessed with Power, Principality, Soveraignty, and Vicarship of Christ,. This is the man you enquire after: But you will have very hard work to find him in the Scripture, or Antiquity, yea the least footstep of him. And do you think indeed that this Episco∣pacy of Peter, distinct from his Apostleship, is a meet stone to be layed in the foundation of faith? It is a thing that plainly overthrows his Apostleship; For if he were a Bishop, properly and distinctly, he was no Apostle: If an Apostle, not such a Bishop: That is, if his Care were confined unto any one Church, and his residence required therein, as the Case is with a pro∣per Bishop, how could the Care of all the Churches be upon him? How could he be obliged to pass up and down the world in pursuit of his Commission of preaching the Gospel unto all Nations? or to travail up and down as the necessity of the Churches did re∣quire? But you will say, that he was not Bishop of this or that particular, but of the Church Vniversal. But I supposed you had thought him Bishop of the Church of Rome, and that you will plead him after¦wards so to have been: And I must assure you, that

he that thinks the Church of Rome in the dayes of Peter and Paul was the same with the Church Catho∣lick, and not looked on as particular a Church as that of Hierusalem, or Ephesus, or Corinth; is a person with whom I will have as little to do as I can in this matter. For to what purpose should any one spend time to debate things, with men absurd and un∣reasonable, and who will affirm that it is midnight at noon day? I know, the Apostolical Office did in∣clude in it the power of all other Offices in the Church whatever, as the less are included in the greater: But that he who was an Apostle should formal∣ly also be a Bishop, though an Apostle might exercise the whole Power and Office of a Bishop, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, somewhat allyed unto Impossibilities. Do you see what a Quagmire you are building upon? I know, if a man will let you alone you will raise a stru∣cture, which after you have painted and gilded, you may prevail with many harbourless Creatures to ac∣cept of an habitation therein: For when you have layed your foundation out of sight, you will pretend that all your building is on a Rock, whereas indeed you have nothing but the rotten posts of such Suppo∣sitions as these, to support it withall. But suppose that Peter was thus a Prince, Monarch, Apostle, Bi∣shop, that is, a Catholick, Particular Officer, What is that to you? Why

III. This Peter came and preached the Gospel at Rome. Though you can by no means prove this As∣sertion, so as to make it de fide, or necessarily to be believed of any one man in the world, much less to become meet to enjoy a place among those fundamen∣tals that are tendred unto us to bring us unto Set∣tlement in Religion; yet being a matter very uncer∣tain, and of little importance, I shall not much con∣tend

with you about it. Witnesses meerly humane and fallible you have for it a great many; and ex∣ceptions almost without number may be put in against your Testimonies, and those of great weight and moment. Now although that which you affirm might be granted you, without any reall advantage unto your Cause, or the enabling of you to draw any lawfull inferences to uphold your Papal claim by, yet to let you see on what sorry uncertain pre∣sumptions you build your faith and profession, and that in and about things which you make of indispen∣sable necessity unto Salvation; I shall in our passage remind you of some few of them, which I profess se∣riously unto you, make it not only Questionable unto me whether or no, but also somewhat improbable that ever Peter came to Rome. 1. Though those that follow and give their assents unto this Story are many, yet it was taken up upon the credit and re∣port of one or two Persons, as Eusebius manifests, Lib. 2. cap. 25. Whether Dionysius Corinthius, or Pa∣pias, first began the Story, I know not; but I know certainly that both of them manifested themselves in other things, to be a little too credulous. 2. That which many of them built their Credulity upon, is very uncertain, if not certainly false; namely that Peter wrote his first Epistle from Rome, which he calls Babylon in the Subscription of it. But where∣fore he should then so call it, no man can tell. The Apocalypse of John who prophesied what Rome should be in after-Ages, and thereon what name should be accommodated unto it for its false wor∣ship and Persecution, was not yet written. Nor was there any thing yet spoken of or known among the Disciples, whence they might conjecture Rome to be intended by that Appellation. So that accor∣ding

unto this Supposition, S^t Peter intending to ac∣quaint them unto whom he wrote, where he was, when he wrote unto them, and to present them with the respects of the Church in that place, had by an aenigmatical expression rather amuzed than informed them. Besides, he had before this, agreed with and solemnly engaged himself unto Paul to take care of the Circumcision; unto whom after he had preached a while in Palestine, it is more than probable that he betook himself unto Babylon in Assyria, the princi∣pal seat of their residence in their first and most po∣pulous dispersion, from whence he wrote unto all their Colonies scattered abroad in the neighbouring Nati∣ons. So that although I will not, because of the consent of many of the Ancients, deny that Peter went to Rome and preached there, yet I am fully sa∣tisfied that this foundation of the Story told by them, is a perfect mistake, consisting in an unwarrantable causless wresting of a plain expression unto a mystical sense and meaning. 3. Your Witnesses agree not at all in their Story; neither as to the time of his going to Rome, nor as to the occasion of it, nor as to the sea∣son of his abode there. Many of them assign unto him 25 years for his residence there, which is evi∣dently false and easily disproved. This computation is ascribed to Eusebius in Chron. Lib. 1. but it is evi∣dently an addition of Hieroms, in whose dayes the Tradition was encreased; for there is no such thing in the Original Greek Copy of Eusebius, nor doth it agree with what he had elsewhere written concern∣ing him. And it is very well worth while, to consi∣der how On••phrius Panvinus, a very learned Anti∣quary of your own party, makes up these 25 years of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome, Annotat. in Plat. in Vit. B. Petr. Ex novem primis annis, saith he, post

Christi mortem usque ad initium secundi and Imperii Claudii, Petrum Judaea nunquam excessisse, ex Actis Apostelorum & Pauli Epistola ad Galatas, apertissimè constat. Si igitur, ut inter omnes Authores convenit, co tempore Romam venit, illud certe necessarium vide••ur eum ante ad urbem adventum Antiochiae septem annis non sedisse; sed hanc ejus Antiochenam cathedram alio tempore fuisse. Quam rem ex vetustissimorum authorum testimonio sic constitui. Secundo Imperii Claudii anno Romam venit, à quo tempore usque ad il∣lius obitum, anni plus minus viginti quinque intersunt, quibus etsi eum Romae sedisse Veteres scribunt, non ta∣men praeterea sequitur, ipsum semper in urbe commora∣tum esse. Nam, quarto anno ejus ad urbem adventus, Hierusolymam reversus est, & ibi Concilio Apostolo∣rum interfuit; inde Antiochiam profectus septem ibi∣dem annis usque ad Neronis Imperium permansit, cu∣jus initio Romam reversus Romanam dilabentem repa∣ravit Ecclesiam. Peregrinatione inde per universam fere Europam suscepta, Romam rediens novissimo Ne∣ronis Imperii anno, martyrium Crucis passus est.

For the first nine years after the death of Christ, unto the beginning of the second year of Claudius, it is most evi∣dent from the Acts, and Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter went not out of Palestine. If therefore, as all agree, he came at that time to Rome, it is certain that he bad not abode at Antioch seven years before his com∣ing thither; (which yet all the Witnesses agree in) but this his Antiochian Chair fell out at some other time. Wherefore I thus order the whole matter from the Testimony of most Ancient Authors, (not that any one before him ever wrote any such thing, but this he supposeth may be said to reconcile their Con∣tradictions); In the second year of Claudius He came to Rome. From thence unto his death were 25 years

more or less: which space of time although the Ancients write that he sate at Rome, yet it doth not follow thence, that he alwayes abode in the City; for in the 4^th year after his coming, he returned unto Jerusalem to be pre∣sent at the Council of the Apostles; thence going unto Antioch, he continued there seven years, unto the raign of Nero. In the beginning of his raign, he returned unto Rome, to repair the decaying Church there; from thence passing almost through all Europe, he re∣turned again to Rome in the last year of Nero, and under went Martyrdome by the Cross. You may easi∣ly discern the uncertainty at least of that Story, which this learned man, can give no countenance unto, but by multiplying improbable imaginations to shelter one another. For, 1. Who ever said that Peter came from Rome to come up to the Councel at Hierusalem; when it is most manifest from the Story of the Acts that he had never before departed out of Judea; and this Councel being granted to have been in the 6^th year of Claudius, as here it is by Onuphri∣us, quite overthrows the Tradition of his going to Rome in his second. 2. The abode of 25 years at Rome, as thus disposed, is no abode indeed; for he con∣tinued almost twice as long at Antioch as he did at Rome. 3. Here is no time at all allowed unto him for preaching the Gospel in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, which certainly are not Provinces of Europe, in which places Eusebius, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 1. Origen, and all the Ancients agree that he did at∣tend unto his Apostleship towards the Jews; and his Epistles make it evident. 4. Nor is there any time left for him to be at Babylon, where yet we know he was; so that this fancy can have no countenance gi∣ven it, without a full rejection of all that we know to be true in the Story.

4. The Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing as Peters going to Rome. Other journeyings of his it records, as to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesaria, Antioch. Now it was no way materiall that his coming unto any of these places should be known, but only in reference unto the things done there by him; and yet they are recorded. But this his going to Rome, which is supposed to be of such huge importance in Christian Religion, and that according to Onuphrius falling out in the middest of his other journeyings, as it must do if ever it fell out, is utterly passed by in silence. If it had been to have such an influence into the very being of Christi∣anity as now is pretended, some men will be apt to think, that the mention of it would not have been omit∣ted. 5. Paul in his Epistle to the Roman••, written a good while after this imaginary going of Peter to Rome, makes no mention of him, when yet he saluted by name those of chief note and dignity in the Church there. So that undoubtedly he was not then come thither. 6. The same Apostle being at Rome, in the reign of Nero, in the amidst of the time allotted un∣to the abode of Peter there, never once mentions him in any of the Epistles which from thence he wrote unto the Churches and his fellow labourers; though he doth remember very many others that were with him in the City. 7. He asserts that in one of his Epistles from thence, which as I think sufficiently proves that Peter was not then there; for he saies plainly that in his triall he was forsaken by all men, that no man stood by him, which he mentions as their sin, and prays for pardon for them. Now no man can reasonably think, that Peter was amongst the number of them whom he complained of. 8. The Story is not consistent with what is expresly writ∣ten

of Peter by Luke in the Acts, and Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. Paul was converted unto the faith about the 38^th year of Christ, or 5^th after his Ascension. After this he continued 3 years preaching the Gospel about Damascus, and in Ara∣bia. In the 40^th or 41^st year of Christ he came to Jerusalem, to conferr with Peter, Gal. 1. which was the first of Claudius. As yet therefore, Peter was not removed out of Judaea: 14 years after, that is, either after his first going up to Jerusalem, or rather 14 years after his first Conversion, he went up again to Jerusalem, and found Peter still there, which was in the 52^d year of Christ, and the 13^th of laudius. Or if you should take the date of the 14 years men∣tioned by him shorter by 5 or 6 years, and reckon their beginning from the passion and Resurrection of Christ, which is not improbable; then this going up of Paul to Hierusalem, will be found to be the same with his going up to the Councel from Antioch, about the 6^th or rather 7^th year of Claudius. Peter was then yet certainly at Hierusalem. That is, about the 46^th year of Christ; some while after you would have the Church to be founded by him at Rome. Af∣ter this, when Paul had taken a long progress through many Countreys, wherein he must needs spend some years, returning unto Antioch, Act. 18. 22. he there again met with Peter, Gal. 2. 11. Peter being yet still in the East to wards the end of the Raign of Claudius. At Antioch where Paul found him, if any of your Witnesses may be believed, he abode 7 years. Be∣sides he was now very old, and ready to lay down his mortality, as our Lord had shewed him; and in all probability after his remove from Antioch, spent the residue of his dayes in the Eastern Dispersion of the Jews. For, 9^ly, much of the Apostles work in Pa∣lestine

among the Jews was now drawing to an end; the elect being gathered in, troubles were growing upon the Nation; and Peter had, as we observed be∣fore, agreed with Paul to take the Care of the Cir∣cumcision, of whom the greatest number by far, ex∣cepting only Judaea its self, was in Babylon and the Eastern Nations about it. Now whether these and the like observations out of the Scripture concerning the Course of S^t Peters life, be not sufficient to out∣ballance the Testimony of your disagreeing Witnesses, impartial and unprejudiced men may judge. For my part, I do not intend to conclude peremptorily from them, that Peter was never at Rome, or never preached the Gospel there; but that your Assertion of it is improbable, and built upon very Questiona∣ble grounds, that I suppose I may safely conclude. And God forbid, that we should once imagine the present faith of Christians, or their Profession of Christian Religion, to be built upon such uncertain Conjectures, or to be concerned in them whether they be true, or false. Nothing can be spoken with more reproach unto it, than to say, that it stands in need of such supportment. And yet if this one Sup∣position fail you, all your building falls to the ground in a moment. Never was so stupendous a fabrick raised on such imaginary foundations. But that we may proceed; Let us suppose this also, that Peter was at Rome, and preached the Gospel there, What will thence follow unto your advantage? what, to∣wards the settlement of any man in Religion, or bringing us unto the Unity of faith, the things en∣quired after? He was at, he preached the Gospel at Hierusalem, Samaria, Joppa, Antioch, Babylon, and sundry other places, and yet we find no such Conse∣quences pleaded from thence, as you urge from his

Coming to Rome. Wherefore you adde,

1 V. That St Peter was Bishop of the Roman Church; that he fixed his seat there, and there he died. In gathering up your Principles I follow the footsteps of Bellarmine, Baronius, and other great Champi∣ons of your Church; so that you cannot except against the method of our proposals of them. Now this Conclusion is built on these three Suppositions. 1. That Peter had an Episcopal Office distinct from his Apostolical; 2. That he was at Rome. 3. That he fixed his Episcopal Sea there; whereof the Se∣cond is very Questionable, the First and Last are ab∣solutely false. So that the Conclusion its self must needs be a notable fundamentall Principle of Faith. It is true, and I shewed it before, that the Apostles when they came into any Church did exercise all the Power of Bishops in and over that Church, but not as Bishops but as Apostles. As a King may in any of the Cities of his dominions where he comes, exer∣cise all the Authority of the Mayor, or particular Governour of that place where he is, which yet doth not make him become the Mayor of the place; which would be a diminution of his royall Dignity. No more did the Apostles become Local Bishops, because of their exercising Episcopal Power in any particular Church, by virtue of their Authority Apostolical, wherein that other was included, as hath been declared. And Cui Bono? to what pur∣pose serves this fictitious Episcopacy? All the Privi∣ledges that you contend for the Assignation of unto Peter, were be••••owed upon him as an Apostle, or as a believing disciple of Christ. As such he had those peculiar grants made unto him. The Keys of the Kingdome of heaven were given unto him as an Apostle (or, according to S^t Austin, as a believer) as

such was he commanded to feed the sheep of Christ. It was unto him as an Apostle, or a professing belie∣ver, that Christ promised to build the Church, on the faith that he had professed. You reckon all these things among the priviledges of Peter the Apostle, who as such is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first in order. As an Apostle he had the Care of all Churches commit∣ted unto him; As an Apostle he was divinely inspired and enabled infallibly to reveal the mind of Christ. All these things belonged unto him as an Apostle; and what Priviledge he could have besides as a Bishop nei∣ther you nor I can tell; no more than you can when, how, or by whom he was called and ordained unto any such office; all which we know well enough con∣cerning his Apostleship. If you will then have any to succeed him in the enjoyment of any, or of all these Privileges, you must bespeak him to succeed him in his Apostleship, and not in his Bishoprick. Besides, as I said before, this imaginary Episcopacy which limits and confines him unto a particular Church, as it doth if it be an Episcopacy properly so called, is destructive of his Apostolical Office, and of his Duty in answering the Commission given him of preaching the Gospel to every Creature, following the Guidance of Gods Providence, and conduct of the Holy Ghost in his way. Many of the Ancients I confess affirm that Peter sate Bishop of the Church of Rome; but they all evidently use the word in a large sense to imply that during his abode there, (for that there he was, they did suppose,) be took upon him the especial Care of that Church. For the same Persons constantly affirm that Paul also was Bishop of the same Church, at the same time; which can∣not be otherwise understood than in the large sense mentioned. And Ruffinus, Prafat. Recog. Clement. ad G••udent. unriddles the mystery: Linus, saith

he, & Cl••tus fuerunt ante Clementem Episcopi in ••rbe Roma, sed superstite Petro; videlicet, at illi Episcopatûs Curam gererent, iste verò Apostolatûs simpleret officium. Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clemens, but whilest Peter was yet alive; they performing the Duty of Bishops, Peter attending unto his office Apostolical. And here∣by doth he utterly discard the present new plea of the foundation of your faith. For though he assert that Peter the Apostle was at Rome, yet he denies that he ever sate Bishop there, but names two others that ruled that Church at Rome joyntly during his time, either in one Assembly, or in two, the one of the Cir∣cumcision, the other of the Gentile-Converts. And if Peter were thus Bishop of Rome, and entred as you say upon his Episcopacy at his first coming thither, whence is it that you are forced to confess that he was so long absent from his charge? Five years, saith Bellarmine, but that will by no means salve the Dif∣ficulty. Seven saith Onuphrius, at once, and abiding at one place; the most part of his time besides being spent in other places, and yet allowing him no time at all for those places where he certainly was: Eigh∣teen, saith Cortefius; strange that he should be so long absent from his especiall Cure, and never write one word to them, for their instruction or consola∣tion; whereas in the mean time he wrote two Epistles unto them, who it seems did not in any speciall man∣ner belong unto his Charge: I wish we could once find our way out of this maze of uncertainties. This is but a sad disquisition after Principles of faith, to settle men in Religion by them; And yet if we should suppose this also, wee are farre enough from our journeys end. The present Bishop of Rome is as yet behind the curtain, neither can he appear upon the stage, untill h•• be ushered in by one pretence more

of the same nature with them that went before, And this is,

V. That some one must needs succeed Peter in his Episcopacy: But why so? why was it not needfull that one should succeed him in his Apostleship? Why was it not needfull that Paul should have a successor as well as Peter? and John as well as either of them? Because, you say, that was necessary for the Church, not so these. But who told you so? where is the proof of what you averre? who made you judges of what is necessary, and what is not necessary for the Church of Christ, when himself is silent? And why is not the succession of an Apostle necessary as well as of such a Bishop as you fancie? had it not been better to have had one still residing in the Church, of whose Infalli∣bility there could have been no doubt or question? One that had the power of working Miracles, that should have no need to scare the people by shaking fire out of his slieve, as your Pope Gregory the 7^th was wont to do, if Cardinall Benno may be believed. But you have now carried us quite off from the Scri∣pture, and Story, and probable conjectures, to attend unto you whilest you give the Lord Jesus prudentiall advice, about what is necessary for his Church; It must needs be so, it is meet it should be so, is the best of your proof in this matter: Only your fratres Wa∣lenburgici adde, that never any man ordained the Go∣vernment of a Community more weakly, than Christ must be supposed to have done the Government of his Church, if he have not appointed such a Successour to Peter as you imagin. But it is easie for you to assert what you please of this nature, and as easie for any one to reject what you so assert if he please. These things are without the verge of Christian Religion; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Towers and Palaces in the ayr: But what must S^t Peter be succeeded in? his Episcopacy

and what therewithall? his Authority, Power and Jurisdiction over all Churches in the world, with an unerring judgement in matters of faith. But all these belonged unto Peter, as far as ever they belonged unto him, as he was an Apostle, long before you fan∣cie him to have been a Bishop: As then his Episco∣pacy came without these things, so for ought you know, it might goe without it. This is a matter of huge importance in that Systeme of Principles, which you tender unto us, to bring us unto settlement in Religion, and the Unity of Faith; would you would consider a little, how you may give some tolerable ap∣pearance of proof unto that which the Scripture is so utterly silent in; yea which lyes against the whole Oeconomy of the Lord Jesus Christ in his ordering of his Church, as delivered unto us therein; dic aliquem dic, Quintiliane, colorem. But we come now to the Pope, whom here we first find latentem, post Pri••∣cipia, and coming forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with his Claim. For you say.

VI. That the Bishop of Rome is the man that thus sue∣cceds Peter in his Episcopacy, which though it were settled at Rome, was over the whoee Catholick Church. So you say, and so you profess your selves to believe. And we desire that you would not take it amiss if we desire to know upon what grounds you do so; being unwilling to cast away all Consideration that we may embrace a fanatical Credo in this unlikely business. We desire therefore to know, who. appointed that there should be any such succession; who, that the Bishop of Rome should be this Successor, Did Jesus Christ do it? we may justly expect you should say. He did: but if you do, we desire to know when, where, how; seeing the Scripture is utterly silent of say such thing. Did S^t Peter himself do it? Pray, manifest un∣to us that by the appointment of Jesus Christ he had

power so to do; and that secondly he actually did so: Neither of these can you prove, or produce any Te∣stimony worth crediting in confirmation of it. Did it necessarily follow from hence, because that was the place where Peter died: But this was accidentall, a thing that Peter thought not of: for, you say, that a few dayes before his death he was leaving that place. Besides according to this insinuation, why did not every Apostle leave a Successour behind him in the place where he dyed, and that by vertue of his dying in that place? or produce you any Patent granted to Peter in especiall, that where he dyed there he should leave a Successour behind him. But it seems the whole weight of your faith, is layed upon a mat∣ter of fact accidentally falling out, yea and that very incertain whether ever it fell out or no. Shew us any thing of the will and institution of Christ in this mat∣ter: As, that Peter should go to Rome, that he should fix his seat there, that he should dye there, that he should have a Successour, that the Bishop of Rome should be his Successour, that unto this Successour I know not what, nor how many Priviledges should be conveyed: All these are arbitrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Inven∣tions that men may multiply in infinitum at their pleasure: For what should set bounds to the imagi∣nations of men, when once they cast off all Reverence of Christ and his Truth? Once more; Why did not Peter fix a Seat and leave a Successor at Antio••h, and in other places, where he abode, and preached, and exetcised Episcopal Power without all question? Was it because he dyed at Rome? This is to acknowledg that the whole Papacy is built, as was said, upon an accidentall matter of fact; and that supposed not proved. Further, if he must be supposed to succeed Peter, I desire to know what that succession is, and wherein he doth succeed him: Doth he succeed him

in all that hee had and was, in reference unto the Church of God? Doth he succeed him in the manner of his Call to his Office? Peter was called immediately by Christ in his own Person: the Pope is chosen by the Conclave of Cardinals, concerning whom, their Of∣fice, Priviledges, Power, Right to choose the Succes∣sour of Peter, there is not one iota in the Scripture, or any Monuments of the best Antiquity: and how in their Election of Popes they have been influenced by the interest of powerfull Strumpets, your own Baro∣nius will inform you. Doth he succeed him in the way and manner of his Personal Discharge of his Office and imployment? Not in the least; Peter in the pursuit of his Commission and in obedience unto the command of his Lord and Master, travailed up and down the world, preaching the Gospel, plant∣ing and watering the Churches of Christ, in patience, self-deniall, humility, zeal, temperance, meekness. The Pope raigns at Rome in case, exalting himself above the Kings of the earth, without taking the least pains in his own Person for the conversion of Sinners, or edification of the Disciples of Christ, Doth he succeed him in his Personal Qualifications which were of such extraordinary advantage unto the Church of God in his dayes; his Faith, Love, Holi∣ness, Light and Knowledg; you will not say so. Many of your Popes by your own confession, have been ignorant and stupid; many of them flagitiously wicked, to say no more. Doth he succeed him in the way and manner of his exercising his Care and Au∣thority towards the Churches of Christ? as little as the rest: Peter did it by his prayers for the Churches, personal visitation, and instruction of them, writing by inspiration for their direction and guidance ac∣cording to the will of God: The Pope by Bulls, and Consistorial Determinations, executed by intricate

Legal Processes, and Officers unknown not only to Peter but all Antiquity, whose ways, practices, or∣ders, terms, S^t Peter himself were he upon the earth again would very little understand, Doth he succeed him in his Personal Infallibility? agree among your selves if you can, and give an answer unto this inqui∣ry. Doth he succeed him in his power of working Mi∣racles? you do not so much as pretend thereunto. Doth he succeed him in the Doctrine that he taught? it hath been proved unto you a thousand times, that he doth not; and wee are still ready to prove it again if you call us thereunto. Wherein then doth this Succession consist that you talk of? In his Power, Au∣thority, Jurisdiction, Supremacy, Monarchy, with the Secular Advantages of Riches, Honour, and pomp that attend them; things sweet and desireable unto car∣nall mindes: This is the Succession you pretend to plead for: And are you not therein to be commended for your wisdome? In the things that Peter really enjoyed, and which were of singular Spiritual ad∣vantage unto the Church of God, you disclaim any Succession unto him; and fix it on things wherein he was no way concerned, that make for your own Se∣cular advantage and interest. You have certainly layed your design very well if these things would hold good to Eternity. For, hence it is that you draw out the Monarchy of your Pope, direct and absolute in Ecclesiasticall things over the whole Church; in∣direct at least, and in ordine ad Spiritualia, over the whole world. This the Diana in making of Shrines for whom your occupation consists, and it brings no small gains unto you. Hence you wire-draw his Ca∣thedrall Infallibility, Legislative Authority, Freedom from the Judgment of any, whereby you hope to se∣cure him and your selves from all opposition, endea∣vouring to terrifie them with this Medusa's head that

approach unto you. Hence are his Titles: The Vicar of Christ, Head and Spouse of his Church, Vice-Deus, Dius alter in Terris, and the like, where by you keep up popular venexation, and preserve his Majestick distance from the poor Disciples of Christ. Hence you warrant his practices suited unto these pretensions and Titles, in the deposing of Kings, transposing of Titles unto Dominion and Rule, giving away of Kingdoms, stirring up and waging mighty warres, causing and commanding them that dissent from him, or refuse to yield obedience unto him, to be destroyed with fire and sword. And who can now question but that you have very wisely stated your Succession.

This is the way, this the progress, whereby you pretend to bring us unto the Vnity of faith. If we will submit unto the Pope, and acquiesce in his De∣terminations, (whereunto to induce us we have the Cogent Reasons now considered,) the work will be effected. This is the way that God hath, as you pre∣tend, appointed to bring us unto Settlement in Reli∣gion. These things you have told us so often, and with so much Confidence, that you take it ill we should question the truth of any thing you averr in the who∣e matter; and look upon us as very ignorant or unrea∣sonable for our so doing. Yea he that believes it safer for him to trust the everlasting concernments of his soul unto the Goodness, Grace, and Faithfulness of God in his Word, than unto these Principles of yours, is rejected by you out of the limits of the Catholick Church, that is, of Christianity; for they are the same. To make good your judgement and censure then, you vent endless Cavils against the Au∣thority, Perfection, and Perspicuity of the Scriptures, pretending to despise and scorn whatever is offered in their vi••dication. This rope of Sand, composed •• false suppositions, groundless presumptions, inconse∣quent

inferences, in all which there is not one word of infallible Truth, at least that you can any way make appear so to be, is the great Bond you use to gird men withall into the Unity of Faith. In brief, you tell us that if wee will all submit to the Pope, wee shall be sure all to agree, But this is no more, but, as I have before told you, what every party of men in the world tender us upon the same or the like condi∣tion. It is not a meer agreement wee aym at, but an agreement in the Truth; not a meer Vnity, but a Unity of Faith; and Faith must be built on Principles infallible; or it will prove in the close to have been fancy not Faith; carnall imagination, not Christian belief: otherwise wee may agree in Turcism, or Judaism, or Paganism, as well as in Christianity, and to as good purpose. Now what of this kind do you tender unto us? Would you have us to leave the sure word of Prophesie, more sure than a voyce from Heaven, the Light shining in the dark places of this world which wee are commanded to attend unto by God himself, the Holy Scripture given by Inspi∣ration, which is able to make us wise unto Salvation, the Word that is perfest, sure, right, converting the Soul, enlightning the eyes, making wise the simple, whose observation is attended with great reward, to give heed, yea to give up all our Spirituall and eter∣nall concernments, to the credit of old groundless uncertain Stories, inevident presumptions, fables in∣vented for and openly improved unto carnal, secu∣lar and wicked ends? Is your request reasonable? Would wee could prevail with you to cease your im∣portunity in this matter: especially considering ••the dangerous consequence of the admission of these your Principles unto Christianity in generall. For, if it be so that S^t Peter had such an Episcopacy as you talk of, and that a continuance of it in a Succession by the

Bishops of Rome, be of that indispensable necessity unto the preservation of Christian Religion as is pre∣tended, many men considering the nature and qua∣lity of that Succession, how the means of its conti∣nuation have been arbitrarily and occasionally changed, what place formerly popular Suffrage, and the Imperial Authority have had in it; how it came to be devolved on a Conclave of Cardinals, what vio∣lence and tumults have attended one way, what bri∣beries and filthy respects unto the lusts of unclean Persons the other, what Interruptions the Succession it self hath had by vacancies, Schisms, and contests for the place, and uncertainty of the Person that had the best right unto the Popedome according to the customes of the dayes wherein he lived, and that many of the Persons who have had a place in the pre∣tended Succession, have been plainly men of the world, such as cannot receive the Spirit of Christ, yea open enemies unto his Cross: would find just cause to suspect that Christianity were utterly failed many Ages ago in the world, which certainly would not much promote the Settlement in Truth and Unity of Faith that we are enquiring after. And this is the first way that you propose to supply that Defect which you charge upon the Scripture, that it is in∣sufficient to reconcile men that are at variance about Religion, and settle them in the Truth. And if you are able by so many uncertainties and untruths to bring men unto a Certainty and Scttlement in the Truth, you need not despair of compassing and thing, that you shall have a mind to attempt.

But you have yet another Plea which you make no less use of than of the former▪ which must therefore be also, (now you have engaged us in this work,) a little examined: This is the Church, its Authority and Infallibil••ty. The truth is, when you come to

make a practical Application of this Plea unto your own use, you resolve it into, and confound it with that foregoing of the Pope, in whom solely many of you would have this Authority and Infallibility of the Church to reside. Yet because in your mannage∣ment of it, you proceed on other Principles than those before mentioned, this pretence also shall be apart considered. And here you tell us,

1. That the Church was before the Scripture, and giveth Authority unto it. By the Scriptures you know that wee understand the Word of God, with this ••ne Adjunct of its being written by his command and appointment. We do not say that it belongs unto the Essence of the Word of God that it be written: Whatever is spoken by God. wee admit as his Word, when wee are infallibly assured that by Him it was spoken; and that wee should do so before, himself doth not require at our hands: for he would have us use our utmost diligence not to be imposed upon by any in his Name. Therefore wee grant that the Word of God was given out for the Rule of men in his Wor∣ship, two thousand years before it was written; but it was so given forth, as that they unto whom it came, had infallible assurance that from Him it came and his Word it was: And if you, or any man else, can give us such assurance, that any thing is, or hath been spoken by him, besides what we have now written in the Scripture, wee shall receive it with the same faith and obedience, wherewith wee receive the Scripture its self. Whereas therefore you say, That the Church was before the Scripture, if you intend no more but that there was a Church in the world, before the word of God was written, wee grant it true; but not at all to your purpose. If you intend that the Church is before the Word of God, which at an appointed time was written, it may possibly be wrested unto your

purpose, but is farre from being true; seeing the Church is a society of men, called to the knowledg and worship of God by his Ward. They become a Church by the call of that Word, which it seems you would have not given untill they are a Church: of Effects produce their Causes, Children beget their Parents, Light brings forth the Sunne, and Heat the Fire: So are the Prophets and Apostles built upon the founda∣tion of the Church, whereof the Pope is the Corner stone: So was the Judaical Church before the Law of i•• constitution, and the Christian before the Word of Promise whereon it was founded, and the Word of Command by which it was edified. In brief; from the day wherein Man was first created upon the earth, to the days wherein we live, never did a Person or Church yield any obedience, or perform any ac∣ceptable worship unto God, but what was founded on, and regulated by his Word, given unto them ante∣cedently unto their obedience and worship, to be the sole foundation and Rule of it. That you have no concernment in what is, or may be truly spoken of the Church, we shall afterwards shew; but it is not for the interest of Truth, that wee should suffer you with∣out controul, to impose such absurd notions on the minds of men; especially when you pretend to direct them unto a Settlement in Religion. Alike true is it, that the Church gives Authority unto the Scripture: Every true Church indeed gives witness or Testimony unto it, and it is its Duty so to do; it holds it forth, declares, and manifests it, so that it may be considered and taken notice of by all; which is one main End of the Institution of the Church in this world: But the Church no more gives Authority to the Scripture than it gives Authority to God himself: He requires of men the discharge of that Duty which he hath assigned unto them, but stands not in need of their

suffrage to confirm his Authority. It was not so in∣deed with the Idols of old, of whom Tertullian said rightly; Si Deus homini non placuerit, Deus non erit: The reputation of their Deity depended on the Testi∣mony of men; as, you say, that of Christ's doth on the Authority of the Pope. But I shall not farther insist upon the disprovement of this vanity; having shewed already, that the Scripture hath all its Autho∣rity both in its self, and in reference unto us, from Him whose Word it is: and wee have also made is appear, that your Assertions to the contrary, are meet for nothing but to open a door unto all Irreligious∣ness, Prophaneness, and Atheism; so that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ nothing sound or savoury, nothing which an heart carefull to preserve its Loyalty unto God, will not nauseate at, nothing not suited to oppugn the fun∣damentals of Christian Religion in this your Position. This ground well fixed you tell us.

11. That the Church is infallible, or cannot erre in what she teacheth to be believed. And we ask you what Church you mean, and how far you intend that it is infallible? The only known Church which was then in the world, was in the Wilderness when Moses was in the mount. Was it infallible when it made the golden Calf, and danced about it proclaim∣ing a feast unto Jebovah before the Calf? was the same Church afterward Infallible in the dayes of the Judges, when it worshipped Baalim and Aftaroth? or in the dayes of Jeroboam, when it sacrificed before the Calves at Dan and Bethel? or in the other branch of it in the dayes of Ahaz, when the High-Priest set up an Altar in the Temple for the King to offer Sacrifice unto the gods of Damascus? or in the dayes of Jehoiaki•• and Zedekiah, when the High-Priest with the rest of the Priests, imprisoned and would have slain Jeremiah for preaching the word of

God? or when they preferred the worship of the Queen of Heaven before that of the God of Abra∣ham? Or was it infallible when the High-Priest, with the whole Councel or Sa••edrim of the Church, judicially condemned as far as in them lay their own Messias, and rejected the Gospel that was preached unto them? You must inform us what other Church was them in the world, or you will quickly perceive how ungrounded your generall Maxim is, of the Churches absolute infallibility. As farre indeed as it attends unto the Infallible Rule given unto it, it is so; but not one jot farther. Moreover, we desire to know, What Church you mean in your Assertion, or rather what is it that you mean by the Church? Do you intend the Mystical Church, or the whole number of Gods Elect in all Ages, or in any Age, militant on the Earth, which principally is the Church of God, Ephes. 5. 26? Or, do you intend the whole diffused body of the Disciples of Christ in the world, separated to God by Baptism and the Profession of saving truth, which is the Church Ca∣tholick visible; Or, do you mean any particular Church as the Roman, or constantinopolitan, the French, Dutch, or English Church? If you intend the first of These, or the Church in the first sense; we acknowledge that it is thus far infallible, that no true member of it shall ever totally and finally re∣nounce, lose, or forsake that faith, without which they cannot please God and be saved. This the Scri∣pture teacheth, this Austin confirmeth in an bun∣dred places. If you intend the Church in the second sense; we grant that also so far unerring and infalli∣ble, as that there ever was, and ever shall be in the world, a number of men making Profession of the saving Truth of the Gospel, and yielding professed subjection unto our Lord Jesus Christ according unto

it, wherein consists his visible Kingdome in this world; that never was, that never can be utterly overthrown. If you speak of a Church in the last sense, then we tell you, That no such Church is by virtue of any Promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, freed from erring, yea so farre as to deny the fundamentals of Christianity, and thereby to lose the very being of a Church. Whilst it continues a Church, it can∣not erre fundamentally; because such Errours de∣stroy the very being of a Church; but those who were once a Church, by their failing in the Truth, may cease to be so any longer: And a Church as such may so fail, though every Person in it do not so; for the individual members of it, that are so also of the Mysticall Church, shall be preserved in its Apostasie. And so the Mysticall Church, and the Catholick Church of Professors may be continued, though all particular Churches should fail: So that no Person, the Church in no sense is absolutely freed in this world from the danger of all errours: that is the conditi∣on wee shall attain in Heaven; here where we know butin part wee are incapable of it. The Church of the Elect and every member of it, shall eventually be preserved by the power of the Holy Ghost, from any such errour as would utterly destroy their Commu∣nion with Christ in Grace here, or pr••vent their fru∣ition of him in Glory hereafter: or, as the Apostle speaks, they shall assuredly be kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation. The Generall Church of Visible Professors, shall be alwayes so farre preserved in the world, as that there shall never want some, in some place or other of it, that shall profess all needfull saving Truths of the Gospel, in the belief whereof and obedience whereunto a man may be saved. But for Particular Churches as such, they have no security but what lyes in their diligent attendance

unto that Infallible Rule, which will preserve them from all hutfull Errours, if through their own de∣fault they neglect not to keep close unto it. And your flattering your selves with an imagination of any other Priviledge, is that which hath wrought your ruine: You are deceived if in this matter you are of Menander's mind, who sayed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that, all will of its own accord fall out well with you though you sleep secure∣ly. As for all other Churches in the world besides your own, wee have your concession not only that they were and are fallible, but that they have actually er∣red long since: and the same hath been proved against yours a thousand times; and your best Reserve against particular charges of Errour lyes in this impertinent generall pretence, that you cannot erre. It may be you will ask, for you use so to do, and it is the design of your Fiat to promote the ••nquiry, If the Church be fallible, that is to propose unto us the things and Doctrines that we are to believe, How can we with faith infallible believe her proposals? And I tell you truly I know not how we can, if we believe them only upon her Authority, or she propose them to be belie∣ved solely upon that account; but when she proposeth them unto us to be believed on the Authority of God speaking in the Srciptures, we both can, and do believe what she teacheth and proposeth, and that with faith infallible resolved into the Veracity of God in his Word: and we grant every Church to be so farre in∣fallible as it attends unto the only Infallible Rule a∣mongst men: When you prove that any one Church is by any promise of Christ, any grant of Priviledge ex∣pressed or intimated in the Scripture, placed in an un∣erring condition, any farther than as in the use of the means appointed she attends unto the only Rule of her preservation, or that any Church shall be ••ecessitated

to attend unto that Rule whether she will or no, whereby she may be preserved, or can give us an in∣stance of any Church since the foundation of the world, that hath been actually preserved and abso∣lutely from all errour, (other than that of your own, which you know we cannot admit of,) as you will do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a great and memorable work, so we shall grant as much as you can reasonably desire of us upon the account of the Assertion under consi∣deration. But untill you do some one, or all of these, your crying out, The Church, the Church the Church cannot erre, makes no other noyse in our ears, than that of the Jews, The Temple of the Lord, the Tem∣ple of the Lord, the Law shall not fail, did in the ears of the Prophets of old. Neither do we speak this of the Church, or any Church, as though we were concerned to question or deny any just Privi∣ledges belonging unto it, thereby to secure our selves from any pretensions of yours; but meerly for the sake of Truth. For we shall manifest anon unto you, that you are as little concerned in the Pri∣viledges of the Church, be they what they will, more or less, as any Society of the Professours of Chri∣stianity in the world; if so be that you are concerned in them at all. So that if the Truth would permit us to agree with you in all things that you assign unto the Church, yet the difference between you and us were never the nearer to an end; for we should still differ with you about your share and interest therein; and for ever abhor your frowardness in appropriating of them all unto your selves: And herein, as I sayed, hath lyen a great part of your ruine; Whilest you have been sweetly dreaming of an Infallibility, you have re∣ally plunged your selves into errours innumerable: and when any one hath jogged you to awake you out of your fatall sleep, by minding you of your particular

errours, your dream hath left such an impression upon your imagination, as that you think them no errours, upon this only ground, because you cannot erre. I am perswaded, had it not been for this one errour, you had been freed from many others: But this perfectly disi••∣ables you for any candid Inquisition after the Truth: For why should he once look about him, or indeed so much as take care to keep his eyes open, who is sure that he can never be out of his way. Hence you inquire not at all, whether what you profess be Truth or not, but to learn what your Church teacheth and defend it, is all that you have to do about Religion in this world: And whatever Absurdities or Inconvenien∣cies you find your selves driven unto in the handling of particular points, all is one, they must be right though you cannot defend them, because your Church which cannot erre hath so declared them to be: And if you should chance to be convinced of any Truth in particular that is contrary to the determination of your Church, you know not how to embrace it, but must shut your eyes against its light and evidence, and cast it out of your minds, or wander up and down with a various assent between Contradictions. Well said he of old

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This is flat folly, namely for a man to live in rebellion unto his own light: But you adde,

III. That your selves, that is, the Pope with those who in matters of Religion adhere unto him, and live in subjection unto him, are this Church; in an assent unto whose infallible teachings and Determinations, the Vni∣ty of Faith doth consist. Could you prove this Assertion I confess it would stand you in good stead. But before we enquire aftes that, we shall endeavour a little to come unto a right understanding of what you say.

When you affirm t••at the Roman Church, is the Church of Christ, you intend either that it is the only Church of Christ, all the Church of Christ, and so con∣sequently the Catholick Church; or you mean that it is a Church of Christ, which hath an especiall Prerog a∣tive enabling it to require obedience of all the Disci∣ples of Christ. If you say the former, we desire to know (1.) when it became so to be. It was not so when all the Church was together at Hierus••lem, and no foundation of any Church at all laid at Rome, Acts 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It was not so when the first Church of the Gentiles was ga∣thered at Antioch; and the Disciples first began to be cal∣led Christians; for as yet we have no tydings of any Church at Rome. It was not so, when Paul wrote his Epistles, for he makes express mention of many other Church in other places, which had no relation unto any Churches at Rome, more than they had one to ano∣ther in their common Profession of the same faith, and therein enjoyed equall gifts and Priviledges with it. It was not so, in the dayes of the Primitive Fathers of the first three hundred years, who all of them, not one excepted, took the Roman to be a local particular Church, and the Bishop of Rome to be such a Bishop, as they esteemed of all other Churches and Bishops: Their perswasion in this matter is expressed in the be∣ginning of the Epistle of Clemens, or Church of Rome unto the Church of Corinth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church that is at Rome, to the Church that is at Corinth; both locall Churches, both equall: And such is the lan∣guage of all the Writers of those times. It was not so in the dayes of the Fathers and Councels of the next three Centuries, who still accounted it a particular Church; Diocesaen or Patriarchal; but all of them par∣ticular, never calling it Catholick, but upon the ac∣count of its holding the Catholick faith, as they called

all other Churches that did so, in opposition to the Errours, Heresies, and Schilms of any in their dayes. We desire then to know when it became the only or absolutely Catholick Church of Christ: As also (se∣condly) by what means it became so to be? It did not do so by virtue of any Institution, Warrant, or Com∣mand of Christ: You were never able to produce the least intimation of any such Warrant out of any Wri∣ting of Divine Inspiration, nor approved Catholick Writer of the first Ages after Christ, though it hugely concern you so to do, if it were possible to be done; but they all expresly teach that which is inconsistent with such pretences. It did not do so, by any Decree of the first Generall Councels, which are all of them si∣lent as to any such thing, and some of them, as those of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalc••don, expresly declare and determine the contrary, at least that which is contrary thereunto. We can find no other way or means where∣by it can pretend unto this vast Priviledge, unless it be the grant of Phocas unto Boniface, that he should be called the Vniversal Bishop, who to serve his own ends was very liberal of that which was not at all in his power to bestow: And yet neither is this, though it be a means that you have more reason to be ashamed than to boast of, sufficient to found your present Claim, considering how that name was in those dayes no more than a name, a meer a••ry ambitions Title, that carried along with it no reall power; and, stet magni nominis umbra.

Secondly, We cannot give our assent unto this Claim of yours, because we should thereby be neces∣sitated to cut off from the Church, and consequently all hope of salvation, farre the greatest number of men in the world who in this and all foregoing Ages have called and do call upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. This we dare not do espe∣cially

considering that many of them have spent and do spend their dayes in great Affliction for their Testi∣mony unto Christ and his Gospell, and many of them every day seal their Testimony with their blood, so be∣longing as we believe unto that holy army of Mar∣tyrs, which continually praiseth God: Now as herein we dare not concurre with you considering the charge given unto Timothy by Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be not partaker of other mens sins, so indeed we are perswaded that your opinion, or rather presum∣ption in this matter, is extreamly injurious to the Grace of Christ, the Love and Goodness of God, as also to the Truth of the Gospell▪ And therefore

Thirdly, We suppose this the most Schismaticall Principle that ever was broached under the Sun, since there was a Church upon the earth: and that because, 1. It is the most groundless, 2. The most unchrita∣ble that ever was; and 3. Of the most pernicious consequence, as having a principal influence into the present irreconcileableness of Differences among Christians in the world; which will one day be char∣ged on the Authors and Abettors of it; For it will one day appear, that it is not the various Conceptions of the minds of peaceable men about the things of God, nor the various degrees of knowledge and faith that are found amongst them, but groundless impositions of things as necessary to be believed and practised, beyond Scripture warrant, that are the Springs and Causes of all, or at least the most blameable and sin∣full differences among Christians.

Fourthly, We know this pretence should it take place, would prove extreamly hazardous unto the Truth of the Promises of Christ given unto the Ca∣tholick Church. For, suppose that to be one and the same with the Roman, and whatever mishap may be∣fall the one must be thought to befall the other; for

on your Supposition, they are not only like Hippocra∣tes twins, that being born together, wept and joyed together, and together died, but like Hippocrates himself, as the same individuall Person or thing, be∣ing both the same; one Church, that hath two names, Catholick and Roman, that is Universall-Particular; no otherwise two, than as Julius Caesar was, when by his overawing his Collegue from the execution of his Office, they dated their Acts at Rome, Julio & Casare Consulibus. For, as they said,

Non Bibulo qui••quam nuper sed Caesare factum est; Nani Bibulo fieri Consule nil memini.

Now, besides the failings which we know your Church to have been subject unto in point of Faith, Manners, and Worship; it hath also been at least in danger of Destruction in the time of the prevalency of the G••ths, Vandals, Huns, and Longobards; especially when Rome its self was left desolate and without In∣habitant by Totilas. And what yet farther may be∣fall it before the End of the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Only this I know that many are in expectation of a sad Catastrophe to be given unto it, and that on grounds not to be despised. Now God forbid, that the Church unto which the Promises are made, should be once thought to be subject unto all the dangers and hazards that you wilfully expose your selves un∣to. So that as this is a very groundless presumption in its self, so it is a very great aggravation of your mis∣carriages also, whilest you seek to entitle the Catho∣lick Church of Christ unto them, which can neither contract any such guilt as you have done, nor be lia∣ble to any such misery or punishment as you are.

Fifthly, We see not the Promises, made unto the Catholick Church, fulfilled unto you; as we see that to have befallen your Church, which is contrary un∣to

the Promises that ever is should befall the Catho∣lick. The conclusion then will necessarily on both instances follow, that either your are not the Catholick Church, or that the Promises of Christ have failed and been of none effect. And you may easily guess, which part of the Conclusion, it is best and most safe for us to give assent unto. I shall give you one or two instances unto this last head. Christ hath promi∣sed his Spirit unto his Church, that is the Catholick Church, to abide with it for ever, Joh. 14. 16. But this Promise hath not been made good unto your Church at all times; because it hath not been so un∣to the head of it. Many a time the Head of your Church hath not received the Spirit of Christ; for our Saviour tells us in the next words, that the world cannot receive him; that is men of the world, carnal∣ly minded men cannot do so: for he is the peculiar inheritance of those that are called, sanctified, and do believe. Now if ever there was any world in the world, any of the world in the earth, some, many of your Popes, have been so, and therefore by the te∣stimony of Christ could not receive the Spirit that he promised unto his Church. Again it is promised, un∣to the Church Mysticall or Catholick in the first and chiefest notion of it, that all her children shall be ho∣ly, all taught of God, and all that are so taught, as our Saviour informs us, come to him by saving faith; you will not I am sure for shame affirm that this Pro∣mise hath been made good to all, either Children or Fathers, of your Church. Innumerable other Promi∣ses, made to the Catholick Church, may be instanced in, which you can no better or otherwise apply unto your Church, than one of your Popes did that of the Psalmist to himself, Thou shalt tread on the Lion and the Basilisk, when he set his foot on the neck of Fre∣drick the Emperour. But the Arguments are end∣less

whereby the vanity of this pretence may be di∣sproved; I shall only adde,

Sixtly, That it is contrary to all Story, Reason, and common sense: For it is notorious that far the great∣est part of Christians, that belong to the Catholick Church of Christ, of have done so from the dayes that Christianity first entred the world successively in all Ages, never thought themselves any otherwise con∣cerned in the Roman Church, than in any other parti∣cular Church of name in the world: And is it not a madness to exclude them all from being Christians, or belonging to the Catholick Church, because they belonged not to the Roman: This I could easily de∣monstrate throughout all Ages of the Church succes∣sively. But we need not insist longer on the dispro∣ving of that Assertion, which implyes a flat Contra∣diction in the very terms of it. If any Church be the Catholick, it cannot therefore be the Roman; and if it be the Roman properly, it cannot therefore be the Catholick.

2. If you shall say that you mean only that you are a Particular Church of Christ, but yet that, or such a Particular Church, as hath the great Privi∣ledges of Infallibility, and universall Authority an∣nexed unto it, which makes it of necessity for all men to submit unto it, and to acquiesce in its Determina∣tions: I answer, 1. I fear you will not say so; you will not, I fear, renounce your claim unto Catholicism. I have already observed that your self in particular af∣firm the Roman and Catholick Church to be one and the same. It is not enough for you that you belong any way to the Church of Christ, but you plead that none do so but your selves. 2. Indeed you do not own your selves in this very Assertion to be a Particular Church; your claim of Universall Authority and Ju∣risdiction, which you still carry along with you, is in∣consistent

with any such concession 3. To make the best of it that we can; what ground have you to give us this Difference between the Churches of Christ, that one is fallible, another infallible; that one hath power over all the rest, that one depends on Christ, all the rest on that one? where is the least intimation given of any such thing in the Scripture? where or by whom is it expresly asserted amongst the Antient Writers of the Church? Was this Principle pleaded or once as∣serted in any of the Antient Councels? Some ambigu∣ous expressions of particular Persons, most of them Bishops of Rome in the declining days of the Church, you produce indeed unto this purpose: But can any rationall man think them a sufficient foundation of that stupendious fabrick, which you endeavour to erect upon them? I suppose you will not find any such Per∣sons hasty in their so doing: Those who are already engaged will not be easily recovered: For new Prose∣lytes unto these Principles you have small ground to expect any, unless it be of Persons whose lives are ei∣ther tainted with sensuality, which they would gladly have a refuge for against the accusations of their Con∣sciences, or whose minds are entangled with worldly secular advantages suited to their conditions, tem∣pers, and inclinations.

Thus I have, with what briefness I could, shewed you the uncertainty, indeed falsness of those Generall Principles from which you educe all your other pleas and reasonings, into which they must be resolved. And now I pray consider the ground-work you lay for the bringing of men unto a Settlement in the Truth and unto the unity of Faith, in opposition to the Scripture which you reject as insufficient unto this purpose. The summe of it is, an acquiesceney in the proposals and Determinations of your Church, as to all things that concern faith and the worship of

God. The two main Principles that concurre unto it, we have apart considered, and have found them every way insufficient for the end proposed. Nei∣ther have they one jot more of strength▪ when they are complicated and blended together, as they usually are by you, than they have in and of themselves as they stand singly on their own bottoms. A thousand falshoods put together will be farre enough from making one Truth. A multiplication of them may encrease a Sophism but not adde the least weight or strength to an Argument. An army of Cripples will not make one sound man. And can you think it rea∣sonable, that we should renounce our sure and firm Word of Prophecy, to attend unto you in this chase of uncertain Conjectures, and palpable untruths? Suppose this were a way that would bring you and us to an Agreement, and take away the evil of our Dif∣ferences; I can name you twenty, that would do it as effectually; and they should none of them have any evil in them, but only that whch yours also is open∣ly guilty of, namely the Relinquishment of our Duty towards God, and Care of our own Souls, to come to some peace amongst our selves in this world, which would be nothing else, but a plain Conspiracy against Jesus Christ, and rejection of his Authority. At present I shall say no more, but that he who is lead into the Truth by so many Errors, and is brought unto establishments by so many uncertainties, hath singular success, and such as no other man hath rea∣son to look for. Or he is like Robert Duke of Nor∣mandy who when he caused the Saracens to carry him into Jerusalem, sent word unto his friends in Europe, that he was carried into Heaven on the backs of Devils.

It may also in particular be easily made to appear how unsuited your means of bringing men unto the unity of faith, are unto that Supposition of the present

Differences in Religion between you and us, which you proceed upon. For, suppose a man be convinced that many things taught by your Church are false, and contrary to the mind of God, as you know the case to be between you and us; what course would you take with him to reduce him unto the Unity of Faith? would you tell him that your Church cannot erre, or would you endeavour to perswade him that the particulars which he instanceth in as Errours, are not so indeed, but real Truths and necessarily by him to be believed? The former, if you would speak it out, down-right and openly, as becometh men who distrust not the Truth of their Principles (for he that is perswaded of the Truth never fears its strength) would soon appear to be a very wise course indeed. You would perswade a man in generall that you can∣not erre, whilest he gives you instances that you have actually erred. Do not think you have any Sophisms against Motion in generall, that will prevail with any man to assent unto you, whilest he is able to rise and walk to and fro. Besides, he that is convinced of any thing wherein you erre, believes the opposite unto it to be true, and that on grounds unto him sufficiently co∣gent to require his assent: If you could now perswade him that you cannot erre, whilest he actually believes things to be true, which he knows to be contrary to your Determination, what a sweet condition should you bring him into? can you enable him to believe Contradictions at the same time? Or, when a man on particular grounds and evidences is come to a setled firm perswasion that any Doctrine of your Church, suppose that of Transubstantiation, is false and con∣tradictory unto Scripture and right Reason; if you should, abstracting from particulars, in generall puzzle him with Sophisms and pretences for your Churches Infallibility, do you think it is an easie thing

for him immediately to forego that perswasion in particular, which his mind upon cogent and to him unavoidable grounds and arguments was possessed withall, without a rationall removall of those grounds and Arguments? Mens belief of things never pierces deeper into their Souls than their imagination, who can take it up and lay it down at their pleasure. I am perswaded therefore, you would take the latter course, and strive to convince him of his mistakes in the things that he judgeth erroneous in the Doctrine of your Church. And what way would you proceed by for his Conviction? Would you not produce Testimo∣nies of Scripture, with Arguments drawn from them, and the Suffrage of the Fathers to the same purpose? Nay would you not do so, if the errour he charge you withall, be that of the Authority and Infallibility of your Church? I am sure, all your Controversie-Writers of note take this course. And do you not see then, that you are brought, whether you will or no, unto the use of that way and means for the reducing of men unto the Unity of Faith, which you before rejected, which Protestants avow as sufficient to that purpose?