A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 21 – Chapter 22
CHAP. XXI.
Detect. 12. ANother of the Roman frauds is this: They perſwade men that the Greeks, the Proteſtants, and all other Churches, were once under their Papal ſoveraignty, and have ſeparated themſelves without any juſt cauſe: and therefore we are all ſchiſmaticks; and thereforefore have no vote in general Councils, &c.—
A few words may ſerve to ſhew the vanity of this accuſation. 1. Abundance of the Churches were ſo ſtrange to you, that they had not any notable communion with you. 2. The Greek Churches withdrew from your Communion, but not from your ſubjection. If any of the Patriarcks or Emperours of Conſtantinople did for carnal ends at laſt ſubmit to you, it was not till lately, nor was it the act of the Churches, nor owned, nor of long continuance. So that it was your Communion and not your ſubjection that they withdrew from.
2. And as for us of the Weſtern parts, we anſwer you, 1. We that are now living, our Fathers, or our Grand-fathers, were not of your Church: and therefore we never did withdraw.
2. There were Churches in England before the Roman Power was here owned: And therefore if it was a ſin to change, the firſt change was the ſin, when they ſubjected themſelves to you; and not the later, in which they returned to their ancient ſtate.
3. And for the Germanes or Engliſh or whoever did relinquiſh you, they have as good reaſon for it, as for the relinquiſhing of any other ſin. If they did by the unhappineſs of ill education or deluſion, ſubmit to the uſurped Soveraignty of the Pope they had no reaſon to continue in ſuch an error. Repentance is not a Vice, when the thing Repented of is a vice. Juſtifie therefore your uſurpation, or elſe it is in vain to be angry with us for not adhering to the uſurper, and the many corruptions that he brought into the Church.
CHAP. XXII.
Detect. 13. ANother deceit that they manage with great confidence, is this; ſay they, If the Church of Rome be the true Church: then yours is not the true Church, and then you are Shiſmaticks in ſeparating from it: But the Church of Rome is the true Church; For you will confeſs it was once a true Church: when Paul wrote the Epiſtle to the Romans: and if it ceaſed to be a true Church, tell us when it ceaſed, if you can: If it ceaſed to be a true Church, it was either by hereſie, or Schiſm or Apoſtacy: but by none of theſe: therefore, &c.
A man would think that children and women ſhould ſee the palpable fallacy of this Argument; and yet I hear of few that the learned Papiſts make more uſe of. But to lay open the ſhame of it in brief I anſwer 1. The deceit lieth in the ambiguity of the word [Church.] As to our preſent purpoſe, obſerve that it hath theſe ſeveral ſignifications. 1. It is taken oft in Scripture for one particular Church, aſſociated for perſonal communon in Gods Worſhip. And thus there were many Churches in a Countrey, as Judea, Galatia, &c. 2. It is taken by Eccleſiaſtical writers often for an Aſſociation of many of theſe Churches for Communion by their Paſtors; ſuch as were Dioceſan, Provincial, National Churches; whereof moſt were then ruled by Aſſemblies, where a Biſhop, Archbiſhop, Metropolitan or Patriarck (as they called them) did preſide. 3. It is taken oft in Scripture for the Body of Chriſt, the holy Catholick or Univerſal Church containing all true Believers as myſtical, or all Profeſſors of true faith as viſible. 4. It is taken by the Papiſts oft for one particular Church which is the Miſtris or Ruler of all other Churches.
And now I come to apply theſe in anſwer to the argument. 1. If the Queſtion be of a true particular Church, we grant you that the Church of Rome was a true and noble Church, in the daies of Paul and long after; and thus Paul owneth it in his Epiſtle as a true Church. And to the queſtion when it ceaſed to be a true Church: I anſwer, 1. What matter is it to us whether it be reaſoned or not any more then whether Corinth, Epheſus, Coloſs, Theſſalonica, or Jeruſalem be true Churches or ceaſed? In charity we regard them all: but otherwiſe what is it to the faith or ſalvation of the world, whether Rome or any one of theſe be yet a true Church, or be ceaſed? I know not well whether there be any Church at Coloſs or Philippi, or ſome other places that had then true Churches: And doth it therefore follow that I am not a true believer? what would you ſay to ſuch a fellow that ſhould argue thus concerning other Churches, as theſe men do of Rome? and ſay, e. g. [If Philippi, be a true Church, then England are no true Churches, If it be not, when did it ceaſe to be a true Church?] Would you not anſwer him, [What is it to me whether Philippi be a true Church or not? May not we and they be both true Churches? How prove you that? And whether it be ceaſed or not ceaſed, doth no what concern my faith or ſalvation, further then as my charity is to be exerciſed towards them] So ſay we of Rome: It was a true particular Church in the Apoſtles dayes. And if it be ſtill a true Church what hinders but we may be ſo to? But whether it be ſo or not, is little to me. It concerneth not my faith or Salvation to know whether there be any ſuch place as Rome on earth, or whether it were conſumed long ago. If a man were ſo ſimple as to believe a report that Rome was deſtroyed by Charls of Bourbon, and never inhabited, or had a Pope ſince, he were but ſuch a Heretick as Pope Zachary and Biſhop Boniface made of Virgilius, for holding there be Antipodes (though further from the South.)
2. And if you take the word [Church] in the ſecond ſence, for a Dioceſan or Patriarchiall Church, or Aſſociation of Churches; ſuppoſing ſuch forms proved warrantable, the ſame anſwer ſerveeth as to the firſt.
3. But (to come to the true ſtate of our Controverſie) If by [a true Church] you mean either of the two laſt, that is, 1. The whole Univerſal Church: or 2. A Miſtris Church that muſt Rule all the reſt, it was never ſuch a true Church in Pauls dayes.
And therefore here we turn this argument of the Papiſts againſt themſelves. If the Church of Rome were neither the whole Catholick Church, nor the Miſtris of all other Churches when Paul wrote his Epiſtle to them, then it is not ſo now, nor ought to be ſo accounted. But the former is proved: 1. That the Church of Rome was not the whole Catholick Church then, no man thats well in his wits can doubt, that reads what a Church there was at Jeruſalem, what a Church at Epheſus, and Philadelphia, Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea, Corinth, and abundance more. Prove that all or any of theſe were parts of the Church of Rome if you can. 2. Where doth Paul once name them either the Catholick Church, or the Miſtris or Ruler of all Churches? or give the leaſt hint of any ſuch thing? or mention any Pope among them whom the whole world was to take to be their Soveraign Head? Is it not an incredible thing that Paul (and all the Apoſtles) would forget to make any mention of this priviledge, or teach them how to uſe it, or teach other Churches their duty in obeying the Church of Rome, if indeed they had been made the Miſtris Church? Men that can believe what they liſt, may ſay what they liſt. But for my part I will never think ſo hardly of Paul and all the Apoſtles, as to accuſe them of ſo great oblivion or negligence. And therefore I conclude, Rome was neither the Univerſal Church, nor the Miſtris Church then (not many an age after) and therefore it is not ſo to be accounted now. So that you ſee how eaſily this ſilly Argument ſhews its ſhame.
But (though it concern not our main queſtion) I ſhall tell them further, that the Matter of the Roman Church muſt be diſtinguiſhed from its New Political Form. For the Matter, ſo many of its members as are true Chriſtians, are part of the Catholick Church of Chriſt, though not the whole: And for the form, 1. There is the form of its ſeverall parts, and the form of the whole. The form of any parts of the Roman Church that are Congregations or particular Churches of true Chriſtiant, may make thoſe parts true Churches: that is, there may be many a true Pariſh Church that yet live under the Papall Yoak. But as to the Politicall form of their Roman Catholick Church, as it is a Body Headed by one claiming an Univerſall Monarchy, ſo the form is falſe and Antichriſtian, and therefore the Church as Papall, muſt be denominated from this form; and can be no better.
And this is our true anſwer to the queſtion, whether the Church of Rome be a true Church? There are I doubt not among them many a thouſand true members of the Catholick Church, and there may be true particular Churches among them, having true Paſtors and Chriſtian people joyned for Gods worſhip (though I doubt there is but few of them but do fearfully pollute it: and I am confident that ſalvation is much more rare and difficult with them, then it is with the Reformed Catholicks; yet that many among them are true Chriſtians and ſaved, I am fully perſwaded, eſpecially when I have read ſuch writings as Gerſons, Guil. Pariſienſis, Ferus, Kempis, &c.) And I think the better of Bellarmine himſelf for ſaying of Kempis de imitatione Chriſti [Ego certe ab adoleſcentia & uſ que in ſenectam hoc opuſculum ſaepiſſime volvi, & revolvi, & ſemper mihi novum apparuit, & nunc etiam mirifice cordi meo ſapit. Bellarm. de Scripter. Eccl. pag. 298.]
But the Pope as a pretended Univerſal Monarch is a falſe Head, and conſequently their Papall Church, as ſuch, is a falſe Antichriſtian Church, and no true Church of Jeſus Chriſt.
And (by the way) I conceive you are thus to underſtand a clauſe in a late oath of Abjuration drawn up by the laſt Parliament to be offered to the Papiſts, viz. that [the Church of Rome is not the true Church] that is, 1. Not the whole Catholick Church, but part of it, as they are Chriſtians. 2. Nor a true Church at all as Papal, and ſo formally as the Now Romiſh Church. But all this is little to our main Queſtion.