A dialogue betwixt two Protestants in answer to a popish catechism called A short catechism against all sectaries : plainly shewing that the members of the Church of England are no sectaries but true Catholicks and that our Church is a found part of Christ's holy Catholick Church in whose communion therefore the people of this nation are most strictly bound in conscience to remain : in two parts.

CHAP. III.

Of the third mark of the true Church, that it's Catholick.

L.

THE next mark he lays down of the true Church is, that its Catholick. And here they make great boasting and triumphing, for they say none else call them∣selves Catholicks but they, nor as they pretend, have any reason so to do, since they tell of vast numbers belonging to their Church in all places of the world far and near, and how they convert Heathens, whilst Protestants, they say, are but a little handful here and there in corners amongst a multitude of Catholicks.

T.

As to what they call themselves it matters lit∣tle, for be sure they'l give themselves good words. Neither is it true that none but they lay claim to that name; for we of this Church do esteem our selves true Catholick Christians, as professing the ancient Ca∣tholick faith of Christ; and so do frequently stile both our selves and our Doctrine, and with good reason, as I doubt not to demonstrate. As to their great numbers compared to other Christians, suppose what they alledge were true (as it is most false) yet is this no sufficient argument of their being true Catho∣licks: for that's to be judged by the truth of their Doctrines, and not by the number of Professors. For if we should at this rate go to the Poll, and judg of truth by most votes, then might the Mahometans car∣ry it from Christians. And heretofore the number of the Arrians was said to be greater than of the Or∣thodox.

But that's to be accounted a true part of the Catholick Church which professes the Catholick faith, even the same Christian Religion which all good Chri∣stians in all ages (former as well as latter) and of all Nations, have ever constantly profest. And by this rule you will find that the Church of England is a most true and sound part of the Catholick Church, as pro∣fessing this same Christian faith contain'd in the Go∣spel, and summ'd up in the Apostles Creed. Here you may remember what I have before told you, that it is most vain and unreasonable for any one particular Church to stile her self the whole Catholick Church, as if there were no Christians in the world but them∣selves. And yet in this sense doth the Church of Rome stile her self Catholick; the absurdity of which I have before shewed. And there needs nothing more to manifest it than this single consideration, that there are thousands and millions of Christians, in several parts of the world, who neither now do, nor ever did own the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, which is the great fundamental article of their faith; (to pass by all others at present) and yet all these whilst they embrace the whole Christian Doctrine, taught in the holy Scriptures, are to be lookt on as true Catholick Christians, though they do not believe the Bishop of Rome to be Christs Vicar upon earth, invested with Supremacy over all Christian Churches, for this is a Doctrine which our Saviour never taught his Disci∣ples. Now without owning this false Doctrine a man cannot be of the Church of Rome, according to the Decrees of their Popes and Councils; and yet with∣out this, I say, a man may receive the whole Chri∣stian Religion, as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and therefore he may be a true Catholick Christian though he be not of the Romish Church, nor yields subjection to it.

L.

This seems to me very plain and clear.

T.

But it will appear yet more plain if you con∣sider, what is a most certain truth, that there can be no manner of good evidence given, that the Church of Christ for some hundred years after our blessed Sa∣viours time, did ever receive this Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy, or his Infallibility. Nay our learn∣ed men assert that there is not so much as any one Christian Writer for at least three hundred years after that time, (some say four or five) that did ever so much as teach any such strange Doctrine as this. How then I beseech you, can the owning of it now be ne∣cessary to make a man a Catholick, when the whole Catholick Church for some ages after its first Plantati∣on was a meer stranger to it?

L.

I think there is no appearance of reason for it.

T.

To this add that the whole Greek (which was much larger than the Romish before it was over-run by the Turks) ever disown'd these same new opinions of the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, with many others of the same stamp; neither do they generally embrace them to this day, (though sometimes the Romanists have used all manner of arts and devices to draw them into a submission) and therefore especially do they account the Greeks to be Hereticks and Schis∣maticks, though I know they lay some other things to their charge. But besides the Greek Church, there are multitudes of other Christians in several parts of the world who submit not to the Bishop of Rome. So that this boast of their vast numbers in comparison of others, is as false as it is weak. For according to the computation of many learned men, if all the Chri∣stians in the world were divided into four parts, those who belong to the Romish Church, where ever they are scattered, would not make one quarter of

them. With what face then can they pretend that they alone are the whole Catholick Church? As if there were no Christians in the world but themselves, all the rest being Hereticks or Infidels, or what they please to call them.

L.

But they say these Churches are not Protestants.

T.

Whether that name be proper to them or not, it's enough that they joyn with us in the most substan∣tial points against the Papists. As to the name of Protestants, I before told you we do commonly un∣derstand by it those who have reformed themselves from the errors of the Romish Church, and have cast off her authority, which before she unjustly usurped over them. And in this sense there are a great many large and flourishing Churches of them in these We∣stern parts of the world, besides numerous Plantations in the East and West-Indies, especially in the latter, where many of the Native Heathens have been con∣verted by them. But as to the Greeks and those other Churches who never were enslaved to the Bishop of Rome, though the name of Protestant may not so fitly belong to them, yet do they agree with us in utterly disowning the Supremacy of that Bishop, which is the very fundamental Doctrine of the Romish Church, by which especially they are distinguished from those of all other communions. As to other points where∣in the Romanists and the Reformed differ, in some of them the Greeks agree with us, in others with them. But that which is most material to my purpose is this, that all these Churches do hold the same essential Arti∣cles of Christian Doctrine with us. They receive the same holy Scriptures, and the same ancient Creeds in which our faith is contain'd; but then they reject many of those additions which in latter times have been made by pretended General Councils of the

Roman Church. Particularly, I say, they deny the Su∣premacy and Infallibility of that Church, the chief of their new Doctrines. By this therefore judg whose faith is most Catholick or Universal, whilst many of their fundamental Articles (as they esteem them) are rejected by all Christian Churches besides themselves, who are not a fourth part of Christendom, whereas all the Articles of our Faith are embraced by all these Churches, yea even by the Church of Rome it self; for as I have often said, the sum of our Faith and Reli∣gion is in the Apostles Creed, and this hath been re∣ceived by the whole Catholick Church in all times and places, and the Roman Church also retains it, though she has added new Articles to it. But if she has any good pretence to the title of being part of the Catholick Church, it must be upon account of her receiving and professing this same Christian Faith which we together with the whole Church of Christ do hold, and not on account of those new Articles she has added; which are so generally disown'd both by us and all other Christians in the world except their own party, and which were utterly unknown to the Catholick Church for many ages after our Saviour. Judge then I say whose faith is most Catholick, theirs or ours?

L.

I confess there seems little difficulty in the case, but yet I have heard them oft object that ours is for the most part a Negative Religion, made up of Negative Ar∣ticles, as that the Pope is not Head of the Church, that there is no Purgatory, no Transubstantiation, &c. Now they say we find no such Negative Doctrines in the Catho∣lick Church of old, and therefore we do herein differ from it.

T.

To this the answer is exceeding easie, that we hereby only reject those corrupt additions which the

Romish Church hath made to the ancient Catholick Faith. And their obtruding these falshoods on the world gave occasion for such Negative Articles as those you mention, which we now look upon as very necessary, to shew that we keep close to the ancient Rule of Faith delivered by Christ and his Apostles, which Faith we keep entire, and do express it most positively and plainly, as we have it in the Creed. But the Novelties which the Romish Church hath added to this, we do utterly deny and reject. As for in∣stance, when the Bishops of that Church, many hun∣dred years after our Saviour, make a new claim of an Universal Jurisdiction over all Christian Churches, we think it most just and necessary to disown all such his Supremacy, as being no where taught in the Gospel, nor mention'd in the Creed, nor own'd by the Primi∣tive Church. The same we declare concerning their other Doctrines of Purgatory and Transubstantiation, that we believe them nor. So we also teach that there ought to be no worship of Images, no Invocation of Saints or Angels, &c. and all this for the same reason, because no where injoyn'd by our Saviour or his Apo∣stles, nor establish'd in any of the four first General Councils (which we readily embrace) but rather the contrary to these is either expressly taught, or plainly enough insinuated. And if the Church of Rome shall still go on to coin new Articles, we shall as occasion is offered, still be as ready to reject them, declaring them to be no part of our Faith. And by this means we do best manifest our conformity to the Catholick Church in all ages, contenting our selves with that Faith which she hath ever profest, and transmitted to posterity. And here it is a most ridiculous thing for them to bid us shew where the Church of old held such Negative Articles as we now do, since these were

not like to be heard of before the errors that occasi∣on'd them were introduced. As when the Judaizing Christians taught the necessity of keeping Moses Law, then the Apostles denied it, and establish'd the con∣trary. Now suppose this error had not been broach'd till some hundred years after, had it not been suffici∣ent for the Christians then to say that the Apostles never taught it, who revealed the whole Counsel of God, and therefore certainly it could be no part of their faith. And so say we of the Doctrines before mention'd, the Popes Supremacy, the worship of the Blessed Virgin, and the like, if these had been so ne∣cessary as Papists hold, we should hear of them in our Saviours Sermons, or in some of the Epistles written by the Apostles to several Churches, or sure we should meet with them in the writings of the most ancient Fathers, or in the Decrees of the first Councils: but since we find no such thing, we may firmly conclude them to be no essential Articles of the Christian Faith. As if now that party in the Roman Church which asserts the freedom of the Blessed Virgin from Original sin, should so far prevail, as to get a Coun∣cil, like that packt up at Trent, to establish this new opinion as an Article of Faith, would it not be enough for us to reply, that this is no where to be found in Scripture, or in the Creed, and therefore whether true or false, yet certainly is no article of faith? And thus we shew our selves to be of the same faith with the Catholick Church of old, whilst we embrace the very same Articles which she did, and what more is obtruded upon us as part of the faith, we do constant∣ly reject it, either as false or as unnecessary. Though as to all or most of the points which we thus reject, you will find sufficient evidence against them in holy Scripture, as I shall afterward shew.

L.

But they commonly say that they have only esta∣blished these new Doctrines in opposition to new Heresies, with which the Church in former times was not troubled, and therefore did not so fully and expresly determine against them, as they now have done: yet they pretend that these their new Articles were plainly implied and con∣tain'd under some head or other, of ancient Doctrine.

T.

All this is most false and frivolous, since if these new coin'd Articles of theirs had been true, there was the same reason why they should have been taught an∣ciently as well as now, and occasion enough was fre∣quently offered. To instance in one for all. If Saint Peter was indeed to have been made supreme Gover∣nour of the Christian Church, and the Bishops of Rome after him, would not our Saviour have told his Apostles so, when they were contending who should be greatest? And after this in the Primitive times, when there were often hot contentions amongst Bi∣shops and Churches, would they not all have appeal'd to the Pope for the decision of their controversies, and have yielded submission to his sentence, if this had been the current Doctrine of the Church, that he was their Supreme Governour and Infallible Judg? But alas! we find no such matter. And consider fur∣ther that when Heresies arose, the ancient Fathers who wrote against them, plainly shew'd how they con∣tradicted the Holy Scripture, and the common Do∣ctrine contain'd in the Creed, as explain'd by those who went before them. Thus when the Arrians de∣nied the Divinity of our Saviour, the Orthodox both proved it by Scripture, and urged that Article of the Creed, that Jesus is the Son of God, which they shew'd was still interpreted of his partaking of a Di∣vine nature, as was afterward therefore more fully exprest in the Nicene Creed. But now where can Pa∣pists

shew Scripture in proof of their Novelties? Or in what Article of the Creed will they prove them to be virtually contain'd, and shew that the Article was so understood by those Ancients who have written Com∣ments on the Creed? How will they by this method make out that the Pope is Christs Vicar on Earth? not surely because Christ is the Son of God. Or what because there is mention made of the Catholick Church, must that be meant only of the Roman Church, so that none must belong to it but those who yield sub∣jection to the Pope? But what ancient Writer did ever thus explain this or the other Article? And to what Articles I beseech you must we reduce those other peculiar Doctrines of theirs, Transubstantia∣tion, Purgatory, &c. with the rest of their gross Er∣rors and Innovations? These therefore do we most justly reject as being corrupt additions to the ancient Christian Faith, the common Faith of Gods Holy Catholick Church, which we retain firm and entire without adding or diminishing.