A Key for Catholics, Preface
Reader,
IF thou come hither with a practical eſteem of Truth, deſiring to know it that thou maiſt obey it, & with an humble mind doſt ſtudy and pray to the Father of Lights, and art impartially willing to receive the Truth in the Love of it that thou maiſt be ſaved, and with diligence and meekneſs to read and weigh the Evidences that I bring thee, thou art then the perſon to whom I recommend theſe Papers with confident expectation of ſucceſs. The Controverſies here handled are thoſe that have made, and ſtill are making, the greateſt comhuſtions in the Chriſtian world. And yet to almoſt all men of learning on both ſides they ſeem exceeding eaſie. I ſeldom meet with a Learned Proteſtant but taketh Popery for ſuch tranſparent fallacies, that he is little or no whit troubled with any doubtings in the buſineſs: And I ſeldom meet with a Learned Papiſt but is as confident on the other ſide, as if beſides them, all the Chriſtian world were blind and mad. Intereſt and prejudice muſt needs do much then on one ſide at leaſt. And which ſide hath the greateſt worldly intereſt to by as their underſtanding, is ſoon diſcerned by one that knows the Papalpower, their Cardinals, Prelates, and the Riches, Honours and priviledges of their Clergy, and that knows our ſtate. And if thou wilt hear the Reaſons of the confidence of both ſides, I will tell it thee here as brieſly and plainly as I can.
We are confident of our own Religion, becauſe we believe the Goſpel: and we have no other Rule and Ieſt of our Religion: And we are confident that Popery is a deceit, becauſe we both believe the Goſpel and the judgement of the ancient and preſent Churches, and becauſe we believe our ſenſe it ſelf: As ſure as we know Bread from Fleſh, and Wine from Blood, by ſeeing, taſting, &c. ſo ſure know we that Popery is falſe. And if a Controverſie is not at an End when it is brought to the judgement of all the ſenſes of all the ſound men in the world (it being about the object of ſenſe) then we are paſt hope of ending controverſies: And therefore as we will not waſte our time with every fellow that will diſpute with us that Snow is black, or the Fire cold, no more will we trouble our ſelves with theſe men that tell us that Bread is not bread, and Wine is not wine.
And if you would know the Reaſons of the confidence of the Papiſts, I know no more of them but what their Writings and ſpeeches do expreſs, and thoſe I have hereafter given you. Two things they are ſtill harping on: the firſt is, that in our way we have no aſſurance that the Chriſtian Religion is true, or that Scripture is the word of God. Save me the labour of repetitions, and read but what I have witten in the Preface to the ſecond Part of the Saints Reſt (Edit. 2. &c.) where I give you the Reſolution of our faith, and in my Safe Religion, Diſp. 3. and then believe them if thou canſt.
Their ſecond is, that thred-bare Queſtion [Where was your Church before Luther? Where hath it been ſucceſsively in each age?] And here meer Sophiſtry carryeth it through the Papal world, to the deluding of the ſimple that will be catcht with chaffe, and are not able to ſee things for Names. I have dealt with ſome of them that harped on this ſtring, and never met with any thing from them that ſhould ſeem conſiderable to a diſcerning man, ſave only the two unanſwerable arguments of Confidence (that I ſay not Impudence) and Loquacity. Though I have more fully ſhamed this Queſtion in this Book, I will here alſo give you at the entrance, a ſhort view of the caſe.
The men that ask us, where our Church and Religion was, either know not (through ignorance) or will not let others know (through wickedneſs) what our Church and Religion is. [Shew us (ſay they) a Church in all ages that held the thirty nine Articles, or that held all that the Proteſtants hold, or elſe they were not Proteſtants?] Forſooth, we muſt receive from them a Definition of a Proteſtant, and then we muſt prove the ſucceſsion of ſuch. Know therefore before you diſpute about the ſucceſsion, what is the thing whoſe ſucceſsion is queſtioned. [A Proteſtant is a Chriſtian that holdeth to the holy Scriptures as the ſufficient Rule of faith and holy living, and proteſteth againſt Popery.] The Proteſtant Churches are Societies profeſsing the Proteſtants Religion. [The Proteſtant Religion] is an improper ſpeech, but [the Proteſtants Religion] is a phraſe that we ſhall own. For [Proteſtancy] is not our Religion it ſelf, but the Rejection of Popiſh corruptions of Religions or defiling Additions. If my Rejections of other mens Additions be themſelves Additions, then is it in the power of any Heretick in the world to force me to Add to my Religion at his Pleaſure. A thouſand new Articles & Forms of Worſhip he may deviſe, and then muſt I add to my Religion by rejecting them all: even as I add to my Apple by wiping the dirt of it, or to my Cloaths, by bruſhing them. The Proteſtants Religion is only the Chriſtian Religion the naked Chriſtian Religion alone: The Papiſts the Chriſtian Religion corrupted with abundance of additions. The Proteſtants ever diſavowed any Confeſsions of men as pretended to be the Rule or Law of their Religion. The Proteſtants Religion is the Holy Scriptures alone] The Papiſts Religion is all that is decreed by the Pope and Councils. Our Religion containtd in the Scoipture hath its Eſſentials and Integrals. All the Eſſentials and as much of the Integrals as (in the uſe of means) we are able to underſtand, we believe particularly and explicitely: the reſt we believe generally and implicitely to be all true. So that as the Papiſts will not give us leave to take the writings of Gre…ſer, Bellarmine or any of their Doctors, yea the Articles of their Divines at Thoren, Ratisbone, &c. to be therefore Articles of their faith, but only thoſe that are contained in General Councils approved by the Pope; ſo we require the ſame juſtice of them that they call Nothing the Articles of our Faith, but what is contained in the Holy Scripture, which is the only Rule of our Religion. Do they know our Religion better then we do? This is our Religion, and this we ſtand to.
Well! Conſider now whether any thing be eaſier then for a Proteſtant to ſhew you a viſible Church that hath ſucceſſively been of his Religion.
1. The Chriſtian Religion hath been in all ages ſince Chriſt in viſible Societies: The Religion of Proteſtants is the Chriſtian Religion: therefore the Religion of Proteſtants hath been in all ages ſince Chriſt in viſible Societies.
2. That Religion which is contained in the Holy Scripture as its Rule or ſufficient Revelation, hath been profeſſed in all ages in viſible Churches. But the Religion of Proteſtants is contained in the Holy Scriptures as its Rule or ſufficient Revelation: therefore the Religion of Proteſtants hath been profeſſed in all ages in viſible Churches.
We name the Societies from the places of their reſidence: Our Church (as Auguſtine tels the Donatiſts) begun at Hieruſalem, and thence was diſperſed into Aſia, Africa and Europe; it hath continued in Syria, Aethiopia, Aegypt, India, Greece, &c. If I could name but one Nation that had been of my Religion, I ſhould ſuſpect it were not the true Religion. It is the Chriſtian world that is inſtead of a Catalogue to us.
O but, ſay the Juglers, This is a General anſwer, to ſay you are Chriſtians: there are more ſorts of Chriſtians then One. I Reply; It is the General or Catholick that we are ſpeaking of; and therefore if it were not ſuch a General anſwer, it were not pertinent to the Queſtion: There are no more ſorts of Chriſtians but One; that is, there is no Eſſential difference among them; but there is a gradual, integral and modal difference. But may not Chriſtians of ſeveral Degrees of Knowledge be in the ſame Catholick Church? Our queſtion is not, [Where any Sect, or any particular Church hath had its ſucceſsion:] but [where that Catholick Church hath been, of which we are members.] And ſurely Chriſt hath but One Catholick Church.
O but, ſay they, would you make men believe that Ethiopians, Armenians, Greeks, &c. are Proteſtants? you may be aſhamed of ſo groſs a fiction.
I anſwer, Is it the Name of Proteſtants, or their Religion, that you would have us prove a ſucceſsion of? Theſe deceivers cheat abundance of poor ſouls by this one device, even ſuppoſing that the word [Proteſtant] doth denominate our Church from its Eſſential parts, and ſo call for a Catalogue of Proteſtants. But I would ask them, whether we or they do better know our Religion? and conſequently what a Proteſtant is? If they know it at all, it is from our writings or expreſsions; For ſure they will not pretend without ſigns to know our hearts, and that better then our ſelves. You muſt take it from us, if you will know what our Religion is, as we muſt take it from you, if we will know yours. And therefore delude not ſilly ſouls by perſwading them that you know what our Religion is better then we. If you will believe our Books that tell you, believe our ſayings alſo, and believe me that here tell you my own Religion. [A Proteſtant is a Chriſtian that proteſteth againſt Popery ]Chriſtianity is our Religion: Proteſting againſt Popery is our Negation or Rejection of your Corruptions of Religion. Men that never heard of the name of Papiſt or Proteſtants, may be of the ſame Religion with us. If many Nations of the world never received Popery, and we reject it; if they never knew it, and we know it and diſown it, are we not both of one Religion, even in the Integrals? One man never heard of the Leproſie: another catcheth it and is cured of it; and a third flyeth from it and preventeth it; And I think all theſe are truly men; yea and (in tantum) ſound men. When you call to us for a proof of our ſucceſsion, either you mean it, of the Eſſentials of our Religion and Church, or of the Negation of your Corruptions: Either you mean it of the points that we are Agreed in, or of thoſe we differ in: Chriſtianity is it that we are Agreed in; and that is our Religion, and nothing but that: Proteſtancy as ſuch, is but our wiping off the dirt, or curing the ſcab that you have brought upon our Religion, Is he not a man as well as you that will not tumble with you in the dirt, or come into your Peſthouſe? If we know not our own Religion, then we cannot tell it you; and then you cannot know it: And if we do know it, believe us, when we profeſs our own Belief: We ſtill profeſs before men and Angels, that we own no Religion but the Chriſtian Religion, nor any Church but the Chriſtian Church, nor dream of any Catholick Church but one, containing all the true Chriſtians in the world, united in Jeſus Chriſt the Head. We proteſt before men and Angels that it is the Holy Scriptures that are the Law and Rule and Teſt of our Religion; And why are we not to be Believed in this our own Profeſsion, as well as you are in yours, when you make the Decrees of Popes and Councils to be your Law and Rule and Teſts?
We perform therefore more then you demand. You ask us Where was our Church before Luther? And we anſwer, Where our Religion was. You ask us, Where was that? and we tell you Where ever the Chriſtian Religion was, and the Holy Scriptures were received. This were enough for us in anſwer to your Queſtion: But we do more: We tell you not only where our Church and Religion was, but where there were men that owned not your grand Corruptions, no more then we: What can you demand more of us, when you call for a ſucceſsion of Proteſtants, then that we tell you of a ſucceſsion of Chriſtians (which are of our Religion) and which were no Papiſts, yea againſt Popery, (which therefore were of our integrity) And who knoweth not that the foreſaid Abaſſines, Armenians, Egyptians, Greeks, &c. are againſt your Papal Soveraignty, Infallibility, and all that is by us renounced as Eſſential to Popery?
O but, ſay the Juglers, theſe are not Proteſtants; they differ from you in many particulars.] I anſwer, Call them by what name you pleaſe; they are not only Chriſtians, but alſo Anti-papiſts, or free from Popery, and then they are of our Religion and Church. But indeed, muſt the world be made believe that all that we Believe is eſſential to our Religion, and that no man that differeth from us can be of our Religion, be the difference never ſo ſmall?
But ſay they, tell us of a Church that profeſſes your 39 Articles. Silly deceivers! Do not thoſe very Articles profeſs that [The Holy Scripture containeth all things neceſſary to ſalvation, ſo that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it ſhould be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requſite or neceſſary to Salvation.] Art. 6. We never took theſe Articles inſtead of the Scripture, but the Articles and all Proteſtants profeſs the Scripture to be the only Rule and Teſt of their Faith and Religion. The ſubſtance of the 39 Articles may eaſily be proved to have been ſucceſſively held by the Church from the beginning; but it is not incumbent on us to prove that every word in the writings of every Divine, or Church, hath been ſo continued; no more then you will own the writings of any Divines or Provincial Synods of your own, as being the Rule of your Faith. As you profeſs that the Decrees of Popes and general Councils approved by him, beſides the Scriptures, are the Rule and Teſt of your Religion; ſo do we profeſs that the Scriptures alone (with the Law of Nature) is the Rule of ours.
But, what (ſay they) will you be of the ſame Church with Neſtorians, Eutichians, and other Hereticks? I Anſw. 1. We will not take all for Neſtorians, or Eutichians, that a railer can call ſuch, that never knew them, nor can prove it. 2. Hereticks indeed that deny any eſſential part of Chriſtianity, are no Chriſtians, anh therefore none of the Church that we are of: but if you will call thoſe Hereticks that have all the eſſentials of Chriſtianity, becauſe they err in leſſer points, we know that there are ſuch in the Catholick Church: We will be none of them our ſelves, if we can eſcape it (yet indeed have no hope of eſcaping all error till we are perfect in knowledge:) But we will not run out of the family of God, becauſe there are children and ſick perſons in it: Nor will we for ſake the Catholick Church becauſe there are erring perſons in it.
O but, ſaith the Papiſt, We acknowledge not your diſtinction of points Eſſential and not Eſſential; all points of Faith are Eſſential with us, and of neceſſity to Salvation.] Anſw. Reader, thou ſhalt ſee here ſuch impudent and faithleſs jugling, as may make thee bluſh to think that Chriſtianity hath ſuch profeſſors. 1. The Outſide of their aſſertion damneth no aeſs then all the world (that live to the uſe of Reaſon) 2. The Inſide of their deceitful meaning is almoſt clean contrary, and leaveth Heathens and Infidels in the Church, or in a ſtate of ſalvation as well as Chriſtians. 3. It leaveth no one Article of faith eſſential to a Chriſtian, or to one that ſhall be ſaved; and leaveth the Church an Inviſible thing, clean contrary to their own aſſertions of its Viſibility. 4. And when they have thus wrangled themſelves into a wood of contradictions and Unchriſtian abſurdities, the wiſeſt of them ſay as we ſay, in the main point. All this I will now manifeſt to thee.
1. The Out-ſide of their aſſertion is that Every point that we are bound to belive by a Divine faith, is fundamental, or eſſential to Chriſtian faith, or of neceſsity to ſalvation. And if ſo, then no man breathing can be ſaved: For no man knoweth all that he is bound to know. And no man believeth that which he underſtandeth not: It is impoſsible to believe that ſuch a Propoſition is a truth diſtinctly and actually, when I underſtand not what the Propoſition is. And that we all know but in part, even what we are obliged to know, no man will deny, but he that is mad by pride or faction: All that God hath revealed in his word, is the matter of our faith: There is to man can ſay, I have no culpable ignorance of any one Truth of God that I ſhould believe. Had we been more perfect in our diligent ſtudies, and prayers, and uſe of all means; and had we never ſinfully grieved the ſpirit that ſhould illuminate us, (to ſay nothing of our Original ſinfull darkneſs) there is not one of us but might have known more then we do. If ſin of the will and life be conſiſtent with true faith, then ſome ſin in the underſtanding is conſiſtent with faith. But the former is true: therefore, &c. But according to the out-ſide of their doctrine, no man that hath any ſinfull ignorance (and conſequently unbelief) in his underſtanding can be ſaved; that is, no man in the world. If he that thinks he knowth any thing, knoweth nothing as he ought to know, 1 Cor. 8. 2. what ſhall be ſaid of theſe men, that think they and all the Church do know all things that they ought to know, and that their underſtandings have no ſin? And muſt we needs be of that faith that damneth all men, and of that Church where none are ſaved?
2. As the Out-ſide of their Aſſertions is made for a bug-bear to frighten fools, ſo that the In-ſide (as expounded by many of them) is that Heathens and Infidels may be of their Church or ſaved, and that nothing of the Chrian faith at all is neceſſary to ſalvation, is plain: For they 'tell us that they mean, that all points are of neceſſity, where they are ſufficiently propoſed, and mens ignorance is not invincible; but where there is no ſufficient propoſal, but mens ignorance is invincible, or ſuch as comes not from a wilfull neglect of means, there no ignorance of the articles of faith is damnable, and ſo no article abſolutely neceſſary: ſo that the queſtion indeed is not Whether men believe or not? but Whether they are Unbelievers or Heathens or ignorant perſons, by a willfull neglect of ſufficiently propoſed Truth, or not? So that all that part of the Heathen or Infidell world (O how great) that have no ſuch propoſals of the Goſpel, may not only be ſaved, but be better and ſafer then moſt Chriſtians (if not all) who certainly are ſinfully ignorant of ſome truth which they ought to know.
Obj. But (ſay they) it will not ſtand with faith to deny belief to God in any thing, ſufficiently revealed: for he that believeth him in one thing, believeth him in all.]
Anſw. Very true, if they know it to be the Word of God. And if this be all, the Proteſtants are ready to averre upon their moſt ſolemn Oaths, that they believe every thing without exception which they know to be a Divine Revelation: and no wonder; for ſo doth every man that believes that there is a God and that he is no lyar. If this will ſerve your turn, you have no more to ſay againſt us; your mouths are ſtopt. But may it not ſtand with faith to be ignorant, and that through ſinfull neglect, of ſome revealed truth of God, or of the meaning of his word? If you are ſo proud as to think that all the juſtified are perfect and have no ſin, yet at laſt conſider whether a man that liveth in Heatheniſm til fourſcore years of age, and then turns Chriſtian, is not afterward ignorant through his former ſinfull negligene? But dare you ſay that you have no ſinfull ignorance to bewail? Will you confeſs none, nor beg pardon, or be beholden to Chriſt to pardon it?
That they make no point of faith neceſſary, while they ſeem to make all necſſary, ſee but what I have after cited from Franſ. à S. Clara probl. 15, 16, 17. and abundance more that are mentioned there by him.
3. And that by this Protean jugling, they make the Church inviſible, is apparent. For what man breathing knoweth the ſecrets of the ſouls of others, whether they have reſiſted or not reſiſted the light? and whether they are ignorant of the articles of faith upon ſinfull contempt, or for want of ſome due means of faith, or internal capacity, or opportunity? We are as ſure that all men are ignorant of ſome thing that God hath revealed to be known (in nature and Scripture) as that they are men: But now whether any one of theſe men be free from thoſe aggravations of his ignorance (and that in every point) upon which the Papiſts make him an unbeliever, is unknown to others: When the Faith or Infidelity of men, and ſo their being in the Church or out of it, muſt not be known by the Matter of Faith which they profeſs, but by the ſecret paſſages of their hearts, their willingneſs or unwillingneſs, reſiſtance or not reſiſtance, and ſuch like, the Church then is inviſible; no man can ſay which is it, nor who is of it: He that profeſſeth not the Faith, may be a Catholick; and he that profeſſeth it, for ought they know, may be an Infidel, as being ſinfully yet ignorant of ſome one truth that is not in his expreſs confeſsion: thus by confuſion the bulders of Babel marre their work.
4. And that the wiſeſt of them, ſay in the main as we ſay, ſee here in ſome proofs. Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 11. [In the Chriſtian Doctrine both of Faith and Manners, ſome things are ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation to all; as the Knowledge of the Articles of the Apoſtles Creed, of the ten Commandements, and of ſome Sacraments. The reſtore not ſo neceſſary, that a man cannot be ſaved without the explicite Knowledge, belief and profeſſion of them—Theſe things that are ſimply neceſſary and are profitable to all, the Apoſtles preached to all—Allthings are Written by the Apoſtles which are Neceſſary to all, and which they openly preacht to all] ſee the place.
Coſterus Echirid. c. 1. p. 49. Non inficiamur praecipua illa fidei capita quae omnibus Chriſtianis cognitu ſunt ad ſalutem Neceſſaria, perſpicuè ſatis eſſe Apoſtolicis ſcriptis comprehenſa] That is; We deny not that thoſe Chief Heads of the Faith which are to all Chriſtians neceſſary to be known to ſalvation, are perſpicuouſly enough comprehended in the Writings of the Apoſtles.] Judge by theſe two (to ſpare the trouble of citing more) whether they be not forced after all their Cavils, to ſay as we, in diſtinguiſhing of Articles of Faith. And they cannot be ignorant, that the Church hath ſtill had Forms of Profeſsion, which were called her Symbols, as being the Badge of her Members; and did not ſuſpend all upon uncertain conjectures about the frame and temper of the Profeſſors minds.
But if indeed it be not the want of Neceſſary Articles of Faith that they accuſe us of, but the want of willingneſs or diligence to know the truth, let them prove their accuſations, and let thoſe perſons that they prove guilty bear the blame. Do they think we would not as willingly know the truth as they? and that we do not pray as earneſtly for Divine illumination? Do we not read their Books? (I verily think incomparably more then they do ours,) and are we not willing to confer with the wiſeſt of them that can inform us? I have often privately and publickly deſired you that if any of them can ſay more then all theſe Schoolmen, Fryars and Jeſuites ſay, which I have read, they would let me hear it, that I may want no means they can afford me for my fuller information.
But yet they have not done with us. When we prove a ſucceſsion of our Religion, by proving a ſucceſsion of ſuch as adhered to the Scriptures, which are the Doctrine of our Religion (an Argument that no Papiſt under heaven can confute,) they vainly tell us, that All Hereticks pretend to Scripture, and therefore that will not prove the point.
But 1. Doth it follow that Scripture is not a ſufficient Rule of our Religion, becauſe Hereticks may pretend to it? You take the 39 Articles for our Religion, and yet may Hereticks that are far from our minds, pretend to them. It's the liker to be the Rule becauſe all Hereticks pretend it, and would borrow credit from it to their Hereſies. The Law of the Land is the Rule of our Juſtice; and yet Lawyers and their Clients that are contrary to each other, do plead it for their contrary Cauſes. The Creed it ſelf is pretended by Arrians for their Hereſie. What muſt we have no Rule or Teſt or diſcovery of our Religion which a Heretick can pretend for his impiety. What words of God or man are not capable of being miſinterpreted? If we ſhould give you every day a confeſsion of Faith, ſome Hereticks might pretend to hold the ſame: No wonder then if they do ſo by the Scriptures.
2. And can any Learned Papiſts be ſo ignorant, as not to know that the Arrians pretended the Authority of General Councils? and ſo do many other Hereticks; and that the Authority of Pope and Councils are frequently pretended for contrary opinions among them, and may be pretended by many an Heretick? And will they therefore grant that the Decrees of Popes and Councils are no ſufficient diſcovery of their Faith? If Hereticks pretending to your Teſt of Faith, diſprove not that to be your Faith, then Hereticks pretending to our Rule and Teſt of Faith (which is the Holy Scripture) is no proof that it is not our Rule of Faith.
I do therefore conclude, that the Proof of a Succeſsion of ſuch Churches as have received the Holy Scriptures, is a valid proof of a ſucceſsion of Churches of our Religion, ſeeing we have no Religion (doctrinally) but the Holy Scriptures. And this as far as modeſty will permit, I challenge all the Jeſuites on Earth to confute with any ſolid Reaſons: yet adding that we do ex ſuperabundanti prove a ſucceſsion alſo of Churches that never owned Popery, even the greateſt part of the Chriſtian world. But let theſe men themſelves but prove to us a ſucceſsion of their Church, even ſuch as they require of us; Let them prove that from the Apoſtles days the Catholick Church (or any one Congregation of twenty men) did hold all that now their Councils and Popes have Decreed, and are eſteemed Articles of their Faith, and I am contented to be their bondſlave for ever, or to bear a fagot, or be uſed by them as cruelly as their malice can invent, or flames or their ſtrappado's execute. Let my Head be at their Mercy if they can but prove that Succeſsion of Popery, as they require us to do of Proteſtancy, or as I have produced of our Churches and Religion. In the 15th and 16th Detection I have more largely ſpoken to them of this point, to which I refer the Reader.
In the very principal point of their Papal Soveraignty, they have nothing but this groſs deceit to cheat the world with: The Roman Emperors divers ages after Chriſt, did give the Biſhop of Rome a Primacy in their Empire, and hence theſe men would perſwade us, that even from Chriſt they have had a Soveraignty over all the Chriſtian world. Wink but at theſe ſmall miſtakes, and they have won the Cauſe: 1. Suppoſe but Chriſts Inſtitution to ſtand in ſtead of the Emperors. 2. Suppoſe divers hundred years after Chriſt, to have been in the Apoſtles days. 3. Suppoſe Primacy to be Soveraignty or Univerſal Government. 4. But eſpecially grant them, that the Roman Empire was all the Chriſtian world; and then they have made good that part of their Cauſe.
That there were many Nations without the reach of the Roman Empire, that had received the Chriſtian Faith, is paſt doubt. Socrates lib. 1. c. 15. ſaith that Thomas choſe Parthia, Bartholomew choſe India, Matthew Ethiopia, to plant the Goſpel in; but the middle India was not converted till Conſtantines days, by Frumentius and Edeſius; and Iberia by a Maid.] So Euſeb. l. 3. c. 3. tells us of Thomas his Preaching to the Parthians, and Andrew to the Scythians. ] Et in vit. Conſt. l. 4. c. 8. that there were many Churches in Perſia, & cap. 91. how Conſtantine wrote for them to the King.] Godignus and others of them maintain that the Abaſſines did receive the Goſpel from the beginning. Beſides Scotland and many other Countries that were not under the Roman Power. And none of theſe were Governed by the Pope.
Theſe three Arguments againſt the Papal Cauſe, I ſhall here premiſe to more that follow.
1. If all that part of the Chriſtian world that was out of the reach of the Roman Empire, did never ſubmit to the Soveraignty of the Pope, then hath he not been ſucceſsively (or at any time) the actual Head of the Univerſal Church: But the Antecedent is moſt certain: therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
How an old woman, the Emperors Mother of Habaſſia, did baffle their Jeſuites, by asking them [ How it came to paſs, if obedience to the Pope be neceſſary to ſalvation, that they never had heard from him till now? ] I have told you after from themſelves.
If Primacy were Soveraignty, and Emperors and Councils were Gods, yet the Indians, Abaſſines, Perſians, and many more in the Eaſt, and the Scots, and Iriſh, and Danes, and Sweeds, and Poles, and Muſcovites, and moſt of Germany in the Weſt and North, ſhould be no ſubjects of the Pope.
2. If the Rule and Teſt of the Faith of Papiſts never had a Real Being, or no ſucceſsion from the Apoſtles, then their Faith and Church hath either no Real Being, or no ſuch Succeſsion: But the Antecedent is true: as I prove.
It is either General Councils, or Popes, or the Church Eſſential (as they uſe to call it, that is, the Whole Body) that is the Rule of their Faith. If it be General Councils, 1. They had no being from the Apoſtles till the Council of Nice; therefore the Rule of the Papiſts Faith was then unborn. 2. Yea they never had a being in the world: There was never any thing like a General Council ſince the days of the Apoſtles to this day. The firſt at Nice had none, (ſave one John of Perſia, who its like was ſome perſecuted Biſhop that was fled, or if one or two more its not material), but the Biſhops of the Empire, and out of the Weſtern parts ſo few as was next to none: The following Councils, as Conſtantinop. 1. &c. were only out of one piece of the Empire: The Council of Trent I diſdain to reckon among the modeſter pretenders to an Univerſality.
2. And if it be not General Councils, but the Pope that is the Rule of their Faith; then, 1. Their Faith hath been interrupted, yea and turned to Hereſie and to Infidelity when the Pope hath ſo turned. 2. And why then do they tell our people, that they take not the Pope for the Rule of their Faith?
3. If it be the Major part of the Univerſal Church, 1. It's known that two to one are againſt them, or at leaſt the Greater part: therefore by that Rule their Faith in the Papal Soveraignty is falſe. 2. And yet it would be hard, if a man muſt be of no Belief, till he have brought the world to the pole for it.
Argum. 3. If all the ſtir that the Papiſts make in the world for the Papal Government be but to rob Chriſtian Princes and Magiſtrates of their Power, then are they but a ſeditious Sect: But the Antecedent is apparent: For there are but two ſorts of Government in the Church: The one is by the Word applyed unto the Conſcience, which worketh only on the willing; either by General exhortations as in Preaching; or by perſonal application, as in Sacraments, Excommunication and Abſolution: And this is the work of the preſent Paſtors, and cannot be performed by the Pope: Nor would he be content with this, to govern Volunteers. The other is by Commands, that ſhall be ſeconded with force: And this is proper to the Magiſtrate. But if they will be deluded to give up their Crowns and Scepters to the Pope, let them ſtand as the objects of the compaſsion of Spectators.
Much more then I have here given you, I had prepared of the Teſtimony of Antiquity againſt them. But here is more then they are able ſolidly to anſwer, and I was afraid of over-whelming the capacity of ordinary Readers. I underſtand not the French Tongue; but by the Teſtimony of Learned men that underſtand them, and eſpecially by the help *The Right Honourable the Earl of Lauderdaile: a perſon whoſe eminent Godlineſs and Learning occaſioneth the ſorrow of his Countrey, that is deprived of him, in ſuch days as theſe when Piety is ſo much eſteemed.of a Noble friend that hath vouchſafed to tranſlate ſome part of them for my uſe, I am imboldened to a confidence, that the two famous Confutations of the great Perron, will ſtand to the perpetual ſhame of Popery, which none of them will be ever able to Reply to, without as great a diſhonour to their Cauſe as will follow their not daring to Reply: I mean, Blondell's Book De Primatu in Eccleſia (which overwhelms them utterly with the witneſs of Antiquity) & Pet. Molinaeus de Novitate Papiſmi (which I hope his Reverend Son of his name may live to help us to in Engliſh.) But if any of the Romaniſts that dare not meddle with thoſe Champions, nor daſh themſelves upon thoſe Pillars, ſhall yet vouchſafe an Anſwer to this ſmaller work, I do hereby aſſure him, that if he wil do it ſoberly, in the fear of God, in a way of cloſe and ſolid Arguing, he will perform a task that will be very acceptable to me. But niblers, ſnarlers, cavillers, and ſenſeleſs praters I ſhall contemn.
Richard Baxter.