Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and popery shewed to be a corruption of it being an answer to a late printed paper given about by papists : in a letter to a gentleman / by J.W.

Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and popery shewed to be a corruption of it being an answer to a late printed paper given about by papists : in a letter to a gentleman / by J.W.

Table of contents

Title page

THE POPISH PAPER.

To my honoured Friend Mr. S. B.

§

ERRATA.

To my honoured Friend Mr. S. B.

[Page]

SIR,

I had no ſooner peruſed the Paper which I received from you, but I perceived that it was penn'd for the ſake of ſuch, as either are not well acquainted with the matters in Controverſie betwixt us and the Church of Rome, or with the Way and Method of arguing. To ſuch as theſe they are wont to pretend high: To thoſe that are ignorant of the former, they talk of Antiquity and Univerſallity; and to ſuch as are unskilful in the latter, of Demonſtrations, and ſelf-evident Principles, of Axioms and Definitions. But all this is a meer flouriſh of Words; for if theſe things come ſtrictly to be examined, inſtead of Antiquity we ſhall too frequently find Forgery and Impoſture; inſtead of the Catholick Church, the Church of Rome; inſtead of Demonſtrations and Definitions, Sophiſtry and Fallacious Arguments. And after this ſtrain is this Paper wrote, in which things are ſo artificially mingled, that they look very ſpeciouſly to thoſe that do not underſtand them; and are ſo well fitted to work upon the eaſie, the ignorant, and inconſiderate, that after it had been printed, as I perceive, long ſince in Fiat Lux, it is again ſingled out [Page] to be put into the hands of ſuch as they have a deſign upon. But I ſhall endeavour to unravel it, and hope, by that time that I have done, that what is therein ſaid will appear to be wholly inſufficient to juſtifie their Church, and acquit it of thoſe Crimes it is charged with: And this I ſhall do by ſhewing,

1. That the whole is falſe.

2. That the particulars are very fallacious.

The former I ſhall make good by theſe following Conſiderations.

1. That a Church may fall from what it once was.

2. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apoſtolical and Primitive times; when it might moſt of all pretend to be (as he calls it) a moſt pure, excellent, and flouriſhing Church.

3. That the alteration from what it was then, to what it is now, is to the worſe; and that it is thereby intolerably corrupted.

If theſe Propoſitions be proved, then the way taken by our Author will ſignifie nothing; ſince it will not be worth the while to enquire how it is, whether it be fallen by Apoſtaſie, Hereſie, or Schiſm, when it is demonſtrable that ſo it is, that it is fallen.

1. That a Church may fall from what it once was; that is, from its Primitive Purity and Simplicity in Faith and Manners, is evident to any that will read the Scriptures, and mind what is therein ſaid of the Churches of the Jews, Sardis and Laodicea; or that are acquainted with Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. And this they of the Church of Rome are bound to grant; they muſt acknowledge, according [Page] to their own Principles, that we once were a Church when in their Communion; and they call us Apoſtatical, Heretical, and what not, ſince we have forſaken it.

2. That the Church of Rome is not now what it was in Apoſtolical and Primitive times, but is changed in Principles and Practice.

In Principles, as,

1. That the Pope is Chriſt's Vicar; that is, that he is the Univerſal King over Chriſt's Flock, and hath a Juriſdiction over all Churches whatſoever, is a new Principle. This the Scripture (which the Church of Rome of old uſed to appeal to) is ſo far from giving any Countenance to, that our Saviour expreſly cautions the Apoſtles againſt any ſuch Uſurpation. Luk. 22. 25. When there was a ſtrife among them, which of them ſhould be accounted the greateſt; he ſaid unto them, The Kings of the Gentiles exerciſe Lordſhip over them, &c. but it ſhall not be ſo: but he that is the greateſt [or will be great, Mark 10. 43.] among you, let him be as the younger, &c. and in the 30. v. ſaith, ye ſhall ſit upon twelve Thrones, &c. not preferring one before the other. And leſt what he had occaſionally ſpoke to Peter, Mat. 16. 19. Whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth ſhalt be bound in Heaven, &c. ſhould be miſconſtrued, he doth give the ſame power to the reſt of the Apoſtles, both before his death, Mat. 18. 18. and alſo after his Reſurrection, Joh. 20. 23. And if we would underſtand the ſenſe of Antiquity as to this matter, I know no ſurer nor ſhorter way, than to ſee what is ſaid by the Councils; for then the Fathers may be ſuppos'd to ſpeak moſt impartially and with greateſt authority; and of this I [Page] ſhall give you a brief account. The firſt general Council was that of Nise, called by Conſtantine the Great, and held An. 325. which in the ſixth Canon doth thus decree, That the Biſhop of Alexandria, and accordingly of Antioch, and of other Provinces, ſhould have power over their own Provinces according to ancient Cuſtom, and the Cuſtom in that caſe of the Church of Rome; and that none ſhould invade the Priviledges of each other. The ſame is ſaid and confirmed in the ſecond Canon of the ſecond general Council held at Conſtantinople by the command of Theodoſius the Emperour, An. 380. And further ratified by the third general Council at Epheſus, in the year 431. Can. 8. If we go forward, we ſhall find that it was further decreed in the above-ſaid Council of Conſtantinople, Can. 3. That the Biſhop of Conſtantinople ſhould have the order of Primacy next to the Biſhop of Rome, becauſe it is New Rome.

And what is thereby to be underſtood, is ſufficiently declared in the 28th Canon of the Fourth General Council aſſembled at Chalcedon, An. 451. in which it is decreed, That the Church of Conſtantinople ſhould have equal Priviledges with that of Rome, there being the ſame Reaſon for that as the other, as it was the Imperial Seat: and accordingly is there a particular inſtance given in caſe of Appeals, Can. 9. From this Juriſdiction which every Church had over its own Members, proceeded other Canons; as, That thoſe who were excluded the Communion of one Church, ſhould not be received by another. So Can. 5. of the aforeſaid Council of Nice, That no Appeals ſhould be made to foreign or tranſmarine Churches. So the Council held at Milevis [Page] in Africa (where S. Auguſtine was preſent) An. 416. which Canon L. 2. de Rom Pon. cap. 24. Bellarmine confeſſeth was made with a particular reſpect to Rome. To the ſame purpoſe the Sixth Council held at Carthage, an. 420. (in which alſo S. Auguſtine was) paſſed a Decree Can. 31.. From all which you may obſerve, 1. That the Biſhop of Rome had anciently a limited Juriſdiction, it was over his own Province only. 2. That the Juriſdiction which he had over his own Province, was ſuch as all other Supreme Biſhops had over theirs. 3. That none had a power to tranſgreſs the ancient and ſetled bounds of Juriſdiction, or to invade thoſe of anothers. 4. That the Honour given to the Biſhop of Rome (whatever priority it was that he had) was not by any Divine Authority, but as Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. That the Honour and Privilege which it had by that means, was what another was capable of; for the ſame was given to Conſtantinople. 6. That none of theſe Decrees in thoſe General Councils were ever oppoſed by the Church of Rome, 'till the Council of Chalcedon. 7. That at that time the pretences of the Popes Legates were univerſally oppoſed and rejected. And I may add, 8. That what was at any time in thoſe days claimed by the Church of Rome, was claimed not upon any Divine Authority, but only upon the Authority of the Council of Nice (as it appears from the tranſactions in the afore-cited Council of Carthage) 9. What was then claimed under that pretext, was upon a pretended, if not a forged, Canon of the Council of Nice, which was detected ſo to be by that Council of Carthage, and their Uſurpation rejected, [Page] as is evident from the Acts of that Council, and the Epiſtle written by the Fathers there aſſembled, and Pope Celeſtine upon it.

From all which it appears (and more I could ſhew) that there was no ſuch thing originally, as this Univerſal Paſtorſhip, which the Biſhop of Rome doth now challenge, and that Rome is therein changed from what it was.

And now let our Author ask (if he pleaſe) by what Councils was the Church of Rome ever condemned? And you may anſwer, by the four firſt general Councils. Let him ask again, which of the Fathers ever wrote againſt her? And you may anſwer, no leſs than 1068, for ſo many were then concerned in all theſe Four Councils. And if this ſuffice not, we may turn him to the Councils of Milcvis and Carthage before mentioned, and to others alſo of good Authority, beſides particular Fathers. I have been the longer upon this, not only becauſe it could not be well compriſed in leſs, but alſo becauſe if this Claim of theirs fall, their Cauſe muſt fall with it.

2. Another new Principle of theirs is, That the Pope hath at leaſt, in ordine ad Spiritualia, a Power over all Kingdoms within the Church, and of depoſing Kings in caſe of Hereſie, or obſtinacy, &c. and of abſolving Subjects from their Allegiance to them when thus depoſed. That this is the Principle of their Church is plain, from Can. 3. of the Fourth Council of Lateran, and from the Council of Trent, in Seſſ. 25. de reform. c. 19. where it is ſomewhat covertly expreſſed, for a Reaſon which the ſtate of Affairs at that time made neceſſary. That this is the Doctrine of their Church, is [Page] proved beyond all contradiction, by the preſent Lord Biſhop of Lincolne, in his late Learned Treatiſe Of Popery, &c.

But that this Doctrine of theirs is new, is commonly confeſſed among themſelves, and maintained ſo to be by ſeveral of their own Communion, and which any one may ſo far receive ſatisfaction in, from what is written by Roger Widdrington (alias Preſton) in his Apologia pro Jure principum, and his humilima ſupplicatio ad Paulum Quintum.

3. Tranſubſtantiation was not originally an Article of their Creed as it is now. So it is ſaid by Jo. Yribarn, Comment in 4. Sent. ſecti. l. 4. Diſt. 11. Q. 3. di p. 42. Sect. 1. an approved Author of theirs, in Primitivâ Eccleſia de ſubſtantia ſidei erat, &c. It was of the ſubſtance of Faith in the primitive Church, to believe that the Body of Chriſt was contained under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine; but it was not of Faith, that the ſubſtance of the Bread ſhould be turned into the Body of Chriſt, and upon Conſecration ſhould not be Bread. For, ſaith he, this was not found out by the Church till the time of Innocent the Third, in the Council of Lateran, where many Truths that before lay hid are explained in the Chap. of Firmiter Credimus, amongſt which, this of Tranſubstantiation is the chief. So alſo ſaith Peter Tataret. Com. in 4. ſent. p. 101. cil. 1. ven. 1607. andp. 142. col. 4. And this was the Opinion of Scotus, In 4. Sent. diſt. 11. q. 3. SS. ad argument. pro prima & diſt. 10. q. 1. SS. quantum ergo. the great Schoolman.

Now it is ſuppoſed that Scotus, who lived within 150 years after, muſt better underſtand what was the Doctrine of their Church before it, and what was the ſenſe of that Council concerning it, than he that comes about 450 years after, and chides him for ſo doing, with a minime probandum. Bellarmine l. 3. de Euchar [...]. 23.

4. The Doctrine of Infallibility, reſpecting their [Page] Church as the Seat of it, was not anciently known, neither claimed by themſelves, nor granted by others; amongſt all the directions given in Scripture for finding out the truth, there is not one word to this purpoſe; and amongſt all the Diſputes in the Primitive Church, we find no ſuch courſe taken for the final determination of them, as the having recourſe to the Apoſtolical Chair of Rome. Hereſies were not then ſo ſcarce, nor the confutation of them ſo eaſie, as that this relief ſhould be forgotten. And it ſeems they themſelves did then as little underſtand their own Priviledges, as they did the Principles of Faith; for this was never ſo much as thought of, in all thoſe Councils which were called on purpoſe for the ſuppreſſion of Hereſies, and where the Legats of the Pope were preſent: Nay to this very day, they are at a loſs where to go for it, whether to the Pope, or a Council, or both, or Tradition, or the Collective Body of Chriſtians; that is, they know not whether to give up the Cauſe or to maintain it. I muſt confeſs, if I ſhould hear a perſon ſolemnly declare, that he hath Treaſure enough in his poſſeſſion to enrich the whole World, and ſhould gravely invite all perſons to addreſs themſelves to him, but in the mean time perceive (though he hath been of the ſame mind for ſeveral years,) that he can neither tell where it is, nor is he and his Family for all this the richer, or in a better condition than other Folk, I ſhould vehemently ſuſpect him either to be a notorious Impoſter or perfect Lunatick. And when we hear the Church of Rome confidently aſſerting its own Infallibility, but find withal that ſhe knows not where to fix it, and that its ruptures and differences [Page] are in the mean time as great as in other Churches, and what are never ended by the way it pretends to, but by plain Turciſm and downright force, I cannot for my heart but think there is more of Intereſt than Reaſon in the caſe, and what they themſelves do rather live by than believe.

But in my mind there is no better Evidence that this is new, than that its falſe; and no better evidence that it is falſe, than that it hath miſtaken. Of which, beſides what hath been or ſhall be farther ſaid of alterations in that Church, I ſhall give you two plain Inſtances, The Council of Trent Seſſ. 4. decr. 1.ſaith, that Traditions are to be received with equal reverence as the Scriptures; and Maldonet Com. in Joh. 6. p. 317.tells us, that The giving the Euchariſt to Children was a Tradition in the Church for 600 years after Chriſt; which is now condemned (as he ſhews) by the Council of Trent. Again, S. Hierom In Iſa. c. 6. and c. 8.ſaith, that the Latine Church then did not receive the Epiſtle to the Hebrews amongst the Canonical Scriptures: But that is now taken into the number by them, and required ſo to be under an Anathema, Seſſ. 4. Decr. 1. Counc. Trid. Now Infallibility and Fallibility are contradictory, and if that Church hath erred (as erred ſhe hath) then ſhe cannot be Infallible, and ſo conſequently the Infallibility of the Church of Rome was not the Principle of the Primitive Church of Rome.

I could ſhew as much of Novelty in the Doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, the Maſs's being a Propitiatory Sacrifice, and of no Salvation out of the Romiſh Church, &c. but what I have ſaid I think is ſufficient.

[Page] 2. The Alterations are as great in point of Practice; the Church of Rome differs therein as much from what ſhe originally was: As,

1. The keeping the Scriptures and Publick Service in an Unknown Tongue, is new. The firſt is evident from the Tranſlations of the Scripture into ſeveral Languages, and eſpecially into the Latine (at that time a vulgar Tongue) of which no ſufficient Reaſon can be given, were it not for the uſe of thoſe that underſtood not the Originals. The latter is not only clear from 1 Cor. 14. but what Bellarmine De Verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 16.doth acknowledge; who ſaith, that the cuſtom of the Peoples ſaying, Amen [that is to what they underſtood] as they did in the Apoſtles time, continued long in the Weſtern, as well as Eaſtern Church.

2. Worſhipping of Images, which was firſt eſtabliſhed in the ſecond Council at Nice, but is ſo different from and contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, that Caſſander Conſult. Artic. 21. ſect. 4.(an Author of theirs) ſaith, that the Chriſtians had not then ſo much as Images in their Churches; and doth further declare from Origen, that the Ancients ab omni veneratione (the very word uſed by the Council of Trent, Seſſ. 25. decret. de Invocat.) imaginum abhorr [...]erunt, that all veneration of them was abhorred. To this I refer the worſhipping of Saints, which was ſo little thought of, that many of the Fathers did not think that the Souls of any ſhould enjoy the beatiſick Viſion, and be in a ſtate of happineſs till the Reſurrection, as Stapleton Deſenſ. Eccl. cont. Whitaker, l. 1. c. 2. Tom. 1. p. 868.doth ſhew. And it ſeems not to have been an Article of Faith in the [Page] time of Lombard or Scotus, the former of which ſaith Sent. l. 4. diſt. 45. it's not incredible the Saints do hear what we ſay; and the latter In 4. diſt. Q. 45.that it's probable God doth reveal our prayers that are offered unto them. It was then the Doctrine of probability only, but now are required to believe it under an Anathema by the Council of Trent. Seſſ. 25. de invocat.

As much is to be ſaid concerning the innovation of Worſhip to the Virgin Mary, of which we read nothing in Scripture or Antiquity, unleſs in what was practiſed by the Hereticks, called Colyridiani in Epiphanius Haereſ. 79, that uſed to carry about her Image, and offer Cakes and Worſhip to it; with whom that good Father thus encounters: What Scripture hath delivered any ſuch thing, &c. Let Mary be in honour, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt be worſhipped; let no man worſhip Mary.

3. Communion in one Kind expreſly contrary to the Scripture, and the practice of the Romiſh Church. The former is acknowledged by the Council of Conſtance Seſſ. 13.when they decreed notwithſtanding for it. The latter is acknowledged by Caſſander Artic. 22., who ſaith, that the Roman Church it ſelf retained the practice of receiving in both Kinds, for above one thouſand years after Chriſt, as is evident from innumerable teſtimonies of ancient Writers.

To theſe I might add the practice of ſaying private and ſolitary Maſſes, of the Adoration of the Hoſt, and carrying it about in Proceſſion, Confeſſion [Page] (as uſed in their Church) &c. but I ſhall forbear.

3. Theſe alterations are to the worſe, and groſs Corruptions. For if the Pope is not Chriſt's Vicar originally, and by his Deputation, then he is a great Uſurper. If he hath not a Power over Kings, to depoſe them, and abſolve their Subjects from Allegiance to them, he is a notorious diſturber of the World. If their Church be not Infallible, and can no more penetrate into or reſolve and determine points of Faith than another, they are great Impoſtors. If Tranſubſtantiation be a Doctrine of their own and not of Chriſt's, they are great Deceivers. If the Scriptures are free to all, then their Church is guilty of the damnation of all amongſt themſelves, that periſh through the want of knowing and underſtanding them; and of all the ignorance in the Chriſtian World which proceeds from that Cauſe. If worſhipping Images, Saints and Angels, the Hoſt, and Relicks, be not Chriſtian Doctrine, and that theſe are no lawful Objects of ſuch Worſhip, then they are Idolaters. If Chriſtians are obliged to partake of the Wine as well as the Bread in the Lords Supper, then they are tyrannical that deny and forbid it. In fine, they that do ſuch things are Enemies to the Kingdom of Chriſt and the Chriſtian World.

If all this be true, that a Church may fall from what it once was, and be alter'd to the worſe, and that theirs is ſo, then we need not ſpend time in diſputing what Apoſtaſie, Hereſie, and Schiſm is, upon which he may talk prettily and ſubtilly; or [Page] by which of them that Church is fallen, as long as fallen ſhe is. But yet, to clear the matter of all wrangling Diſputes, I ſhall conſider theſe things alſo; and ſhew,

2. That the Particulars are very fallacious; which will appear from the conſideration of the ſeveral terms.

1. Most pure, excellent, flouriſhing Mother Church; of all which little or nothing is ſaid in the places of Scripture quoted by him in the Margin. If we conſult the Epiſtle to the Romans, there referred to, we ſhall find, That it was ſo far from being at that time a flouriſhing Church, that it is there not once ſo much as called a Church. The Apoſtle directs two Epiſtles to the Church in Corinth, and two to the Church of the Theſſalonians, and one to the Churches of Galatia; but to the Romans he writes thus, Ch. 1. v. 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints; as if they were yet Converts at large, without any other ſetled Conſtitution, than what was in the Houſe of Aquila, which he therefore calls a Church, Ch. 16. v. 5. And therefore Salmeron, aware of it, thinks St. Paul would not call them a Church purpoſely, becauſe of the Factions that were there at that time betwixt the Jews and Gentiles. Tom. 13. in Rom. 1. diſp. 7. p. 299. col. 2.

But if we ſhould grant it a Church; yet how doth that, Rom. 1. 8. prove that it was flouriſhing, when it's only ſaid there, Your Faith is ſpoken of throughout the whole World; and in Ch. 16. v. 19. (for I ſuppoſe that is the other place he would refer [Page] to) Your obedience is come abroad unto all Men; by which doubtleſs no more is to be underſtood, but that the Converſion of many to Chriſtianity in that City was ſpread throughout the Roman World; and did tend much to the propagation of it, as that City was then the Imperial Seat. This is the explication given of this place by ſome of their own Writers, viz. Rigaltius, in his Notes upon St. Cyprian, Epiſt. p. 78. and Tolet who in c. 1. ad Rom. Annot. 16. calls it a true Expoſition, and ſaith it's to be underſtood as 1 Theſ. 1. 8.

As for the term Mother, I hope he means not that the Goſpel firſt came from thence; for in that ſenſe ſhe was a Daughter, and not a Mother. And if any Church could pretend to any Authority from that conſideration, it muſt be Jeruſalem, which in this ſenſe was the Mother of us all. But if he means thereby, that ſhe was an Original and Apoſtolical Church, planted by the Apoſtles, or in Apoſtolical times (for ſo Tertullian uſeth theſe Words alike lib. de proſcript. cap. 21. when he calls them Matrices & Originales Eccleſiae, and again Eccleſiae Apoſtolicae) then ſuch alſo was Epheſus in Aſia, and Corinth in Achaia, &c. as Tertullian there ſhews, c. 32. and 36. of which Churches it will be hard for him to find any thing remaining, and which, while they did remain, he muſt acknowledg to have fallen and been groſly corrupted. And therefore Rome's being a Mother Church, in this ſenſe, is no ſecurity againſt Apoſtaſie, Hereſie and Schiſm.

2. Apoſtaſie, he ſaith, is a renouncing not only the Faith of Chriſt, but the very Name and Title to [Page] Chriſtianity. This indeed is Apoſtaſie with a Witneſs; but as it is no more than a Branch or particular kind of it, ſo it can be no compleat or true definition of it. It being juſt as if he ſhould ſay, that Theft is the violent and forcible taking away of another Man's Goods; which indeed is the higheſt degree of it, and what we uſually call Robbery; but there are other ſorts of Theft beſides; and though it be never ſo ſurreptitiouſly and clandeſtinely done, it is as well Theft, and a breach of the Eighth Commandment as the other. So it is in the preſent caſe; the higheſt degree of Apoſtaſie is a renouncing the very name of Chriſtian, the turning a Renegado, a Turk, or Jew: But that is Apoſtaſie alſo, when there is a departure from the Faith of Chriſt, or from any great Article or Articles of it. And ſo far a perſon may be truly an Apoſtate, and yet retain the Name and Title to Chriſtianity. I muſt confeſs, I always took thoſe to be Apoſtates, whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, 1 Tim. 4. 1. that depart from the Faith of Chriſt, who yet ſeem to have continued in the profeſſion of it. And I am apt to believe Antichriſt will be thought an Apoſtate; and yet it's the Opinion of many among themſelves, that he ſhall retain the name of Chriſtian. But if this will not do, I muſt refer him to the Bulla Coenae of Paul the Fifth, where its ſaid in the firſt Article of it, Excommunicamus, &c. We Excommunicate and anathematize, &c. all Huſſites, Wickleviſts, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calviniſts, Hugonots, Anabaptiſts, Trinitarians, & à Chriſtianâ ſide Apoſtatas, ac omnes & ſingulos alios Haereticos, &c. and all Apoſtates [Page] from the Chriſtian Faith, and all other Hereticks, &c. which is doubtleſs ſpoken of ſuch as have not, nor are ſuppoſed to have renounced the Name and Title to Chriſtianity. So that either the Pope in one of his moſt ſolemn Bulls is miſtaken, or this Gentleman: And if we take to the former, as I hope he either in modeſty, or for a more important reaſon which he is privy to, will allow, then the Church of Rome may be fallen by Apoſtaſie, though ſhe doth retain the Name and Title, and will needs be the only Church of Chriſt.

3. Hereſie, he ſaith, is an adheſion to ſome private or ſingular Opinion or Errour in Faith, contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church. Before we admit this Definition, there are a great many things to be conſidered; as firſt, that the relation which he makes Hereſie to have to the Doctrine of the Church, is not current amongſt themſelves. For many of them do ſay, that Hereſie is nihil aliud quàm Error in rebus fidei cum pertinacia, Hereſie is nothing elſe than an Error in the matters of Faith with obſtinacy, as Sayrus acknowledgeth in his Clavis Sacerdotum l. 2. c. 9. n. 34. and Durand is of the ſame mind (notwithſtanding what Sayrus ſaith of him to the contrary) as appears l. 4. diſt. 13. Q. 5. where he makes the reſpect which Hereſie hath to the Church, to be becauſe the Church is conſtituted, per unitatem fidei, by the unity of the Faith: So that according to theſe, the reſpect which Hereſie hath to the Church, is only from the reſpect which the Church hath to the Faith: And to find out what Hereſie is, we muſt [Page] enquire not what the Church is, but what is the Faith. And if ſo, a Church, even that of Rome, may fall by Hereſie, though ſhe may hold the general approved Doctrine of the Church. But I doubt if we ſhould admit the whole, and yet take it in any ſenſe but one, viz. for the general approved Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the laſt Ages of it, that we ſhall find her guilty in this point alſo. Shall the Church be taken for the Primitive Church three or four hundred years after our Saviour, then they are guilty of Hereſie who will have the Pope to be Chriſts Vicar, and to have Juriſdiction over all Churches; that do maintain worſhipping of Images, Angels and Saints to be lawful and neceſſary, &c. contrary to the general approved Doctrine of thoſe Ages. Should we take the Church, for the Church Catholick in any Age (as Caſſander doth; Conſult. Artic. 22.) that is, the Congregation of Chriſts faithful people all over the World, then ſtill Rome would fall into the ſame Condemnation, ſince that ſhe is but a little part in compariſon of the whole. Should we take Church again for the Romiſh Church in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity, it would then alſo condemn it ſelf, as I have before ſhewed. And I ſee no way for them, even according to this definition, (which is perfectly one of their own making) to avoid this imputation, but by ſtifly maintaining, that they thereby underſtand the Church of Rome for ſome Ages laſt paſt; if that will do; and then we know where to find them, and what to underſtand when they talk of the Church.

[Page] 4. Schiſm, he ſaith, is a departure from the Unity of the Church whereby the Band and Communion held with ſome former Church is broken. This is as lame and fallacious a definition as any of the reſt. For by foyſting in that word Former, which he after runs upon, he reſtrains it to one particular Branch of Schiſm; and its juſt as if he ſhould ſay, A Church is an Aſſembly of Chriſtians that join in Communion with each other in the City of Rome; which none will allow to be a ſufficient definition of a Church: For that term added, In the City of Rome, doth no more than prove that the Aſſembly of Chriſtians there met is a Church; but is no definition of a Church; for then no Church could be out of the City of Rome, and every Church, if it be a Church, muſt be in that City and no where elſe, if that be a true definition of it. So it is here, the word Former added to the definition of Schiſm here given, doth prove no more than that a departure from the Unity of a Former Church is a ſpecies and ſort of Shciſm, but is no adaequate definition of it. For if it is, then no Church can be guilty of Schiſm, that doth, how unwarrantably ſoever, refuſe to hold Communion with, or doth break off from the Communion of a Church that was not a Church before it. And conſequently, though the Church of Jeruſalem had denied to hold Communion with any Church whatſoever (though it were even with the Church of Rome it ſelf) ſhe could not be guilty of Schiſm, becauſe ſhe was the firſt Church, and none was prior to her. And we alſo ſhould be quit of that blame (if we [Page] had nothing elſe to ſay for our ſelves) for as much as a Church was founded here in Brittain two years before that of Antioch; and St. Peter was ſeven years at Antioch before he preſided at Rome, as Baronius ſaith, An. 35. Num. 5. and An. 39. Numb. 23. from whom and from which time they pretend alone to derive their Supremacy.

And now this will hold, although the Church thus ſeparated from had given no reaſon or colour at all for it. For according to the definition of our Author, it muſt be a Former Church which the departure muſt be from to make it Schiſm. We may indeed ſay that Schiſm is when the Band or Communion held with any Church, is (without juſt reaſon) broken and diſſolved; becauſe all Chriſtian Churches ought to maintain Communion with each other, where it may be had: But if ſo, then the Church of Rome is the moſt Schiſmatical in the World, that denies Communion with all Churches that are not in all Tridentine points one with her.

If you now, Sir, reflect upon his Scheme and frame of Arguments, you will ſee that they hold in nothing which he produceth them for.

For what will it ſignifie if it be granted that the Church of Rome was once a moſt pure, flouriſhing Church, if ſhe be now abominably corrupted? What if ſhe was a Mother Church planted by the Apoſtles, and watered with their Doctrine, and their Blood, when ſhe now preacheth another Doctrine than ſhe was taught by them, and hath groſly corrupted that Faith which they did there [Page] eſtabliſh. What if ſhe was a Mother Church to ſome other Churches, yet, that as it gives her no Authority over thoſe whom ſhe was not in any ſenſe a Mother to, ſo even not over ſuch as ſhe might pretend that Relation to, when ſhe is now not to be approached to, or held Communion with, without apparent hazard of Salvation; and is fallen from thoſe Principles and that Faith which ſhe at their firſt converſion inſtructed them in? When ſhe is fallen by Apoſtaſie, Hereſie, and Schiſm.

By Apoſtaſie, as ſhe hath forſaken the Primitive Church, and is not now what ſhe originally was, either in Faith or Manners.

By Hereſie, as ſhe hath received new Articles of Faith, that were not ſuch before, and ſo obſtinately perſiſted therein, that ſhe hath turned the Anathema upon all Diſſenters in thoſe points from her. Such Articles ſhe hath embraced and doth now hold, as have been condemned by Councils, wrote againſt by the Fathers, and reproved by Authority.

Some of theſe ſhe was particularly charged with, and reproved for; and in others ſhe is as much concerned, as if particularly charged, becauſe ſhe hath embraced thoſe things which were by them condemned. For if the things and principles were condemned, whoever holds them is as much ſo condemned by that Authority, as if particularly named. As they will acknowledge, that if a Church now in Communion with them ſhould fall off from them, ſhe is thereby as much under the Anathema of the Council of Trent, as if ſhe had at the meeting of that Council been ſo far faulty, and thereby been particularly condemned.

[Page] By Schiſm ſhe is fallen, as ſhe denies Communion with all other Churches in the World, whether they were ſo before ſhe was a Church, or were Churches converted and eſtabliſhed at the ſame time with her, or that have embraced the Chriſtian Faith ſince ſhe did. The company of ſuch ſhe hath left: From theſe Bodies ſhe is gone forth: And theſe were the true Churches which ſhe forſook. So that ſhe will be found as often guilty of Apoſtaſie as there are particulars of Faith, Doctrine, Worſhip, and Manners, which ſhe is fallen from the Primitive Church in. As often of Hereſie, as ſhe hath new Principles of Faith, and which the Church was not then acquainted with. As often of Schiſm, as there are Churches in the World, that ſhe will not hold Communion with, only becauſe they will not embrace thoſe Principles, or join with her in thoſe practices which ſhe holds contrary to them, and with them to the Primitive Church.

And thus, Sir, I have made good, I hope, what I firſt undertook, and if thereby any ſervice can be done to you or our Religion, it will be a great ſatisfaction to,

SIR,

Your Servant. J. W.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

Chriſtianity ABUSED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME, AND Popery ſhewed to be a Corruption of it: BEING An Anſwer to a late Printed Paper given about by Papiſts.

In a Letter to a GENTLEMAN.

By J. W.

Revel. 2. 5.

Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the firſt works, or elſe I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy Candleſtick out of his place, except thou repent.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Biſhops Head in S. Paul's Church-yard. 1679.

THE POPISH PAPER.

[Page]

IT will not be denied but that the Church of Rome was once a moſt pure, excellent, flouriſhing and Mother Rom. 1. 8. Rom. 16. Rom. 6. White, defence of his way. p. 435. King Jam. in his Speech to the Parliament. VVhitaker in his anſwer to D. Sand. 2 Demonſt. Tulk. in c. 22. Theſ. Sect. 7. Reynolds in his 5th Concluſion. Church.

This Church could not ceaſe to be ſuch, but ſhe muſt fall either by Apoſtaſie, Hereſie, or Schiſm.

1. Apoſtaſie is not only a renouncing of the Faith of Chriſt, but the very Name and Title to Chriſtianity: No man will ſay, that the Church of Rome had ever ſuch a fall, or fell thus.

2. Hereſie is an adheſion to ſome private and ſingular Opinion, or Errour in Faith, contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Church.

If the Church of Rome did ever adhere to any ſingular, or new Opinion diſagreeable to the common received Doctrine of the Chriſtian World, I pray ſatisfie me as to theſe Particulars, viz.

1. By what General Council was ſhe ever condemned?

2. Which of the Fathers ever writ againſt her? Or,

3. By what Authority was ſhe otherwiſe reproved? For, It ſeems to me a thing very incongruous, that ſo great a Church ſhould be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemn her.

3. Schiſm is a departure or diviſion from the Unity of the Church, whereby the Band and Communion held with ſome former Church, is broken and diſſolved.

If ever the Church of Rome divided her ſelf by Schiſm from any other Body of faithful Chriſtians, or brake Communion, or went forth from the Society of any elder Church: I pray ſatisfie me as to theſe particulars.

1. Whoſe company did ſhe leave?

2. From what Body did ſhe go forth?

3. Where was the true Church which ſhe forſook?

For it appears a little ſtrange to me, that a Church ſhould be accounted Schiſmatical, when there cannot be aſſigned any other Church different from her, (which from Age to Age, ſince Chriſt his time, hath continued viſible) from whence ſhe departed.

§

[Page]

Imprimatur,

Febr. 7. 1678/9.

Guil. Jane, R. P. D. Henr. Epiſc. Lond. a Sac. Dom.

ERRATA.

PAge 2. line ult. for they muſt read who must. p. 3. l. 3. for they call us read that call us. l. 10. for King read Paſtor. p. 4. l. penult. after Nice put a full ſtop. l. ult. after Churches put a comma,

Information about this book

Title statement

Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and popery shewed to be a corruption of it being an answer to a late printed paper given about by papists : in a letter to a gentleman / by J.W.

Williams, John, 1636?-1709.

Edition statement

1679

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A66388

ID [STC]

Wing W2698

ID [STC]

ESTC R3178

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12630770

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12630770

ID [VID]

64750

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A66388)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64750)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 678:17)

Source

— Christianity abused by the Church of Rome, and popery shewed to be a corruption of it being an answer to a late printed paper given about by papists : in a letter to a gentleman / by J.W., Williams, John, 1636?-1709..

Extent

[2], 21, [1] p.

Printed for Walter Kettilby ...,. London :: 1679.. (Attributed to John Williams. Cf. Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.).) (Includes bibliographical references.) (Letter addressed: To my honoured friend Mr. S.B.) (Errata: p. [1] at end.) (Reproduction of original in Bristol Public Library, Bristol, England.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.