Presbyteries triall, or, The occasion and motives of conversion to the Catholique faith of a person of quality in Scotland ; to which is svbioyned, A little tovch-stone of the Presbyterian covenant

CHAP. XXVII. That the Protestant Church was not visible in the primitive Church, or the holy Fathers; nor thereafter, in the Roman Church.

IT was very ordinary for the old Protes∣tants, of the late English Church, to allead∣ge, that the ancient Fathers were of their reli∣gion, and that their Church was conforme to the primitive Church. In which matter M. Iewels appeale to the Fathers of the first 6. hun∣dred yeares, is very famous. But that pretence is idle, in regard of our present question. 2. it is false. First it's idle: because, were it true (as we shall see it to be, most false) that these Fathers of the first 5. or 6. hundred years, were Protestants; yet, could not that suffice to prove them a continued succession of 1600. years. For I enquire what became of the Protestant Church after the Fathers, to the time of Lu∣ther? Did it perish, or not? If it perished: then it is not the true Church, which must be perpetual, according to the first vndeniable principle above setled. If the Protestant Church did not perish, but remain'd visible for 900. years, between the Fathers & Luther:

then the question remaines, where was it, in what kingdome, Province, or Citie? which-can never be shewed. Yea, some famous Protes∣tants do acknowledge, that all that time the Pro¦testant Church was not to be seen. Therefore, although the Fathers were granted to have been Protestants, the Protestant Church can∣not be continued, by them, after their time.

Secondly, its most false that the Fathers were Protestants. 1. Because the Christians of the sixth age must needs know better, what was the religion and tenets of them, who li∣ved in the fifth age, by whom they were ins∣tructed, and with whom they conversed, th n Protestants can do now. But these Chris∣tians have protested on their salvation, that it was the very same with theirs, receiv'd from them, by word of mouth. Therefore, if the Christians of the sixth age were not Protes∣tants, neither were the Fathers and Christians of the 5. age Protestants, and so you may go vpward, even to the Apostles. This reason shall be more cleared hereafter. 2. It may be known, that the Fathers were not Protestants by the points already examined. For they did not beleeve Iustification by faith only, the im∣possibility of keeping the Commandments: They did not deny the necessity & effect of baptism, they did not deny the real presence: which are principal articles of the Protestant religion: but taught the quite contrary; as hath been seen. Therefore, according to the second principle above setled, they were not Protes∣tants.

3. Not to descend to particular doctrines, this same truth may be shewed, by the little account Protestants make of the Fathers, whom they would highly esteem, if they ma∣de for them; and in a word, by the open Con∣fession of the chief Protestants, that the Fa∣thers were against them, in many things. Lu∣ther, as if he were a little after cups, speaks ve∣ry intemperatly of the Fathers. In the writing (saith he) of Hierome there is not a word of true faith, or sound religion: of Chrysostome I make do accompt: Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk: I weigh him not a haire: Cyprian is a weak Divine &c. And generally he affirmeth, that the authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded. If the Fathers had been P••otestants, Luther had not so vnderva ved them, nor disclaim'd their authority. Calvin also ingenuously con∣fesseth, that the Fathers are against him, in many points. It was a custom, saith he, about 1300, years ago to pray for the dead, but all of that time, I confesse, were caried away into error, He grante••h also, that the Fathers taught sa∣tisfaction, free will, merit, fasting in Lent, &c. All which Whitaker confirmes. It's true, saith he, what Calvin & the Centurists have written that the ancient Church did erre in many things, as touching limbe, free will, merit of works, &c. And again, he saith: The Popish religion is pat∣ched vp of the Fathers errors. Peter Martyr ac∣cords to him. So long, saith he, as we stand to the Councels and Fathers we shall remaine al∣wayes in the same Errors. An other famous Pro∣testant

said more clearly, If that be true, which the Fathers have professed by mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists side. This open Con∣fession of the Protestants chief Reformers, and best Schollers, sheweth evidently, that the ho∣ly Fathers were not Protestants. And therefore the Presbyterians, who disclaime the holy Fa∣thers & yeeld them to the Papists, are much more sincere & ingenuous in this matter, then the late English Protestants: who laid claime to the Fathers, & deceitfully made the people beleeve, that they were Protestants; which they were enforced to deny, when they were dealing with Schollers, as may appeare by the former testimonies. By all which, it is more then evident; that the holy Fathers and pri∣mitive Church were not Protestants; and the∣refore, the Protestant Church cannot be she¦wed to be visible in thē: much lesse can the vi∣sibility of it be continued after them. Wherefore we must go and seek out this visible Protes∣tant Church els where: for here it cannot be seen.

The last valiant attempt was made by some famous Protestants, who, after they had seen that all their neighbours and Predecessors had wearied themselves in vaine, by travailing all the world over, to find out a visible Protes∣tant Church, before Luther, which could not be found; had in end their recourse vnto the Popish Church, as vnto a City of refuge, in this great straight. They taught two things. 1. That the Roman & Protestant Churches are

all one Church, as agreing in all fundamental points of faith, although they dis••gree in not fundamentals; and by this distinction, they think to answer easily that hard question, where was your Church before Luther? To witt: they say, it was the ve y same with the Roman, which they acknowledge to be a true Church, keeping all the fundamental points of religion, which are necessary to salvation; albeit she had some errors not fundamētal, which do not destroy the nature of the Church, but on∣ly make it si k and weak. And so by this means they think to avoid all the inconveniences, in∣to which other Protestants do fall. For hereby; it is shewed, that the Church did not perish, nor was invisible, nor was only visible for a time, but was perpetually visible. 2. They de∣ny, that the Protestant Church made any real substantial separa ion from the Roman: and affirm, that all, which they did, was only to free themselves of some errors, which as sick∣nesses (though not in themselves mortal) had crep't in, vpon the Roman Ch••rch, which being often advertised of her maladies, and de∣sired to cure them, would admit no medicine: which the Protestants, taking at length, in a cup of Reformation, did purge themselves of all infirmities, and thereby their Church was rendred whole and sound. So that there is no more difference between the Roman & Pro∣testant Church, then between the same man, whole & sick, who by health and sicknesse is not substantially different, but remaines still

the same man. The Protestants, who followed this course, were famous in their own genera∣tions, and much cryed vp for learning & pru∣dence, as Hooker, the Bishop of Spalato, Feild, Bunny, Potter, Chilingworth and di∣verse others, as may be seen, in the B. of Cal∣cedons treatise of fundamental points, and in the Protestants Apologie. I shall content my self with the testimony of M. Bunny, who writes thus: No question ought to be made for our separation from the Church. For we make not a distinct Church from them, nor they from vs. There was therefore no separation made frō the Church; neither did any of vs go out from them. The only question may be, which of vs are to be esteemed the more wholsome members of the Church, we, or they? Neither is there any other question approved by vs. Yea, he acknowledgeth, that, vnlesse this answer be made; the Papists have great advantage, in their old question; seing the Protestants cannot shew a Church distinct, from the Roman, before Luther.

But this answer of these late Authors is as false and insufficient, as any of the former. First it directly contradicts the d ctrine & practice of their Reformers, who are supposed to have been heavenly Apostles. For they accused the Roman Church of Idolatrie, superstition, and diverse grosse fundamental errors, which ma∣ke not a Church to be only sick, but also kill and destroy it, and as the Presbyterians speak, make it of the Church of Christ, become the Synagogue of Sathan & Anti-Christ. Then for separation: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first Reformers were so far

from denying it, that they invited all persons to separate themselves from the Roman Church, which they called spiritu••l Babylon, And according to this doctrin, their practice followed. Therefore it is evident, that the first Reformers did not think the Roman and Pro∣testant Church all one, in fundamentals, nei∣ther did they deny separation from the Ro∣man Church, but rather the quite contrarie is most clear and certaine.

Secondly, Diverse other famous Protestants condemne this new opinion, as im ious. For M. Perkins writes thus. The Politician, who is of no religion, saith, hat we and the Papists differ not in substance. And Whiteker saith plainly, that the Roman Church hath taken away many fun∣damental articles of faith, and corrupted faith in the principal parts. All the o••her late Protestants, and especially the Presbyterians condemne the same opinion. For nothing almost can incense them m re, then to say, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and that the Protes∣tants made no separation from her. Hence it came to passe, that M. Hooker was sharply re∣proved, for this device, by the Puritans, in their Christian letters.

Thirdly, besids all these confusions & con∣tradictions among themselves, the answer in it self is false & insufficient. For, when we are seeking a Protestant visible Church before Luther, these men shew vs the Popish Church: and albeit all the world knowes, that Papists are not Protestants; yet they affirm, that

the Popish and Protestant Church are all one, & differ not substantially: which is a double de∣ceit, first ••o shew one thing very different for another; and then to affirm, that they are both one. But I conceive, it can hardly enter into a mans imagination, vnlesse it be troubled, to think, that these Churches are substantially one, which differ and are clearly opposite, in the principal, substantial points of religion, as in Sacrifice, Sacraments, the observation of the divine Commandments, iustifying faith, good works and many others particulars. The one Church approveth External Sacrifice, as a most acceptable service and worship due to God, and offers vp the Christian sacrifice, as the most excellent of all sacrifices and adores it as God. The other hath no sacri∣fice at all, but condemnes that, as great abomi∣nation & grosse Idolatrie, which the first ma∣kes the greatest obiect and exercise of its piety. This difference alone, albeit we speak of no more, is so great; that M. Dallie, a renown'd Min ster in France doth affirm, in his Apolo∣gie which he wrote lately for the reformed Churches, and is approved by his Colleagues the Ministers of Charenton, that it was suffi∣cient to iustifie the Protestants separation from the Roman Church, and to hinder their vnion again with it, as being a most substantial and fundamental difference. By which, it's evi∣dent, that the ground, whereon this answer is founded, to witt, that there are no fundamen∣tal differences, between the Catholique &

Protestant Church, is false; both in it felt, & in the iudgment of the first Reformers, & of many other famous Protestants.

But, whither there be fundamental diffe∣rences, or not; the answer is not sufficient: For the q••estion still remaines, where was the Protestant Church before Luther? that is a Church believing all the articles of a Protes∣tant Confession, whither some of them b cal∣led fundamental, or not fundamental; or (if they please) of men holding all these articles, and esteeming some of them fundamental and some not. For we are now seeking a Protestant Church, before Luther, and according to the definition above setled, such a Church is a so∣ciety, beleeving all the articles of their Cōfessiō. Therefore, they must shew vs such a Confessiō, or else they do not shew vs a Protestant Church. Yea, the points, which they call not fundamētal, wherein they disagree frō the Papists, are these, which make them properly Protestants. If then they confesse (as they must do) that no society can be had before Luther, which believed all these points, which they call not fundamental; they must also grant, that there was no visible Pro∣testant Church before Luther: which is directly to succumb & faile in that, which they vnder∣took to shew. So that, albeit this distinction of fundamentals, &c. were admitted, as good & true, whereas indeed, in their sense, it's false and deceitfull, as we shall see more clearly he∣reafter; yet, in relation to the present question, it would serve them to no purpose.

These reasons are, more then sufficient, to shew, that this new answer is false and insuffi∣cient and is nothing but a meer shift, devised to elude the question: And that it cannot be sa∣tisfactorie to any man, who is searching for the truth; which is condemned by famous Pro∣testants as f••lse and impious, and which is con∣trarie to the doctrin & practice of the first Re∣formers. This sheweth clearly the great straight & necessity: wherevnto such learned and pru∣dent men were reduced, in answering this hard question, which required an accompt of the Protestant Church before Luther. For they could not say, the Church had perished, which had been a blasphemous falshood against the most clear Scriptures: they saw also, that all the other pretences to the Waldenses, and the rest, were false and frivolous, seing none of these agreed intirely with Protestants, neither had any of them perpetual continuance: and being ashamed of the Puritans invisible Church, which we shall see to be a meer Chi∣mera, they had no other refuge, but to flie vn∣to the Roman Church, which they were the∣refore enforced to acknowledge, to be the true Church, which had alwayes remain'd, albeit their first Reformers had abandonned it, as a false Church, accusing it of superstition & Ido∣latrie, as the most part of all visible Protestants yet continue to do. But this refuge hath been shewed to serve them to no purpose. These men do in a part resemble the prodigal child, who never thought of returning to his Fathers

house, till he had spent all h••s means, and till great misery & necessity compelled him: so these learned Protestants, after they had fare travailed, wearied themselv's much, and spent all their braines, in seeking out their Church, before Luther, and not finding it any where; at length, by meer necessity, had their last re∣fuge vnto their Fathers, house, the Catholique Church, which they had before left. But there was this deplorable difference, between the prodigal child and them: that he, being truly penitent and confessing his fault with great hu∣mility, was by his Father most lovingly met, embraced & kissed, cloathed and feasted whe∣reas they returning, not with humility & re∣pentance for their separation, but with idle ex∣cuses, and vaine accusations, without any o∣ther intention, save only to get their naked∣nesse covered, and their other vrgent necessi∣ties supplyed, were neither met, nor received, clothed, nor feasted: but have perished for fa∣mine and cold, and are now almost all, with the decay of their late ill founded Church, ex∣stirpared out of the world. They called the Ro∣man, a sick Church, and their own, a whole Church; yet it is verifyed, that their whole Church is dead, and hath decayed before the sick Church. And as their Church, according to them, was only visible in the Roman Church, before Luther: so it's now invisible in it self, and only visible, as it was in the begin∣ning, and like to continue so, vnto the end.

By all which considerations, it is evident,

that no visible Protestant Church can be found before Luther, and much lesse, a continuall succession of it from the time of the Apostles. We have travailed almost all the world over, seeking this Church and we have followed diverse Protestant Guides, who vndertook to shew it vnto vs; but ever in the end, they faile of their promises. Therefore we must passe now from the Protestant visible Church, which cannot be seen, before Luther, to their invi∣sible Church, which we shall see cannot be found before him.

Notes

• Pe••kins expos. symbol. p. 266. whit,
• Luth. in colloq c. de pa∣trib.
• Idom de seruo. arbitr. cap. 2,
• Cal inst lib. 3. cap 5 sect. 10.
• Vvhit cont. 2, q. 5 c. 7. & li. 6. e••nt. Duri∣eum. P. Mar. de voto
• Dudi∣tius ap. Bezam Epist. 1.
• Bunny Tract. de Paci∣fication. sect. 18. p. 108.
• Perk. in c. 8. ad Galat. v. 9. Whita. cont. 2. quaest. 6. c. 3.