Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Questions proposed
Two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome.
WHether a Protestant haveing the same Motives to become a Catholick, which one bred and born, and well grounded in the Catholick Religion, hath to remain in it, may not equally be saved in the profession of it?
2. Whether it be sufficient to be a Christian in the abstract, or in the whole latitude, or there be a necessity of being a member of some distinct Church, or Congregation of Christians?
Answer.
The first Question being supposed to be put concerning a Protestant yet continuing so, doth imply a contradiction, viz. That a Protestant continuing so, should have the same Motives to become a Catholick (takeing that term here, only as signifying, one of the communion of the Church of Rome) which those have, who have been born or bred in that communion. But supposing the meaning of the Question to be this, Whether a Protestant leaving the communion of our Church, upon the Motives used by those of the Roman Church, may not be equally saved with those who are bred in it? I answer,
1. That an equal capacity of salvation of those persons being supposed, can be no argument to leave the communion of a Church wherein salvation of a person may be much more safe, than of either of them. No more, than it is, for a man to leap from the plain ground into a Ship, that is in danger of being wrackt, because he may equally hope to be saved with those who are in it. Nay, supposing an equal capacity of salvation in two several Churches, there can be no reason to forsake the communion of the one for the other. So that to perswade any one to leave our Church to embrace that of Rome, it is by no means sufficient to ask whether such a one may not as well be saved as they that are in it already: but it is necessary, that they prove, that it is of necessity to salvation to leave our Church, and become a member of theirs: And when they do this, I intend to be one of their number.
2. We assert, that all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome do run so great a hazard of their salvation, that none who have a care of their souls, ought to embrace it, or continue in it. And that upon these grounds.
1. Because they must by the terms of communion with that Church, be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry, either of which are sins inconsistent with salvation; Which I thus prove.
That Church which requires the giving the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator, makes the members of it guilty of hypocrisie or Idolatry; for it they do it, they are guilty of the latter, if they do it not, of the former; but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images, the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist, and the formal Invocation of Saints, doth require the giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator; therefore it makes the members of it guilty of hypocrisie or Idolatry.
That the Church of Rome in these particulars doth require the giving the creature the honour due only to God; I prove thus concerning each of them.
1. Where the Worship of God is terminated upon a creature there, by their own confession, the Worship due only to God is given to the creature; but in the Worship of God by Images, the Worship due to God is terminated wholly on the creature; which is thus proved; the Worship which God himself denyes to receive, must be terminated on the creature: but God himself in the second Commandment not only denyes to receive it, but threatens severely to punish them that give it. Therefore it cannot be terminated on God, but only on the Image.
2. The same argument which would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry lawful, cannot excuse any act from Idolatry, but the same argument, whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry, would make the grossest Heathen Idolatry not to be so. For if it be not therefore Idolatry; because they suppose the bread to be God, then the Worship of the Sun was not Idolatry by them who supposed the Sun to be God; and upon this ground, the grosser the Idolatry was, the less it was Idolatry: for the grossest Idolaters were those, who supposed their Statues to be Gods. And upon this ground their Worship was more lawful, than of those who supposed them not to be so.
3. If the supposition of a middle excellency between God and us, be a sufficient ground for formal Invocation, then the Heathen Worship of their inferiour Deities could be no Idolatry: for the Heathens still pretended, that they did not give to them the Worship proper to the Supream God; which is as much as is pretended by the devoutest Papist, in justification of the Invocation of Saints. To these I expect a direct and punctual answer, professing as much Charity towards them, as is consistent with Scripture and Reason.
2. Because the Church of Rome is guilty of so great corruption of the Christian Religion by such opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life: Such are, the destroying the necessity of a good life, by making the Sacrament of Penance joyned with contrition, sufficient for salvation; the taking off the care of it, by supposing an expiation of sin (by the prayers of the living) after death; and the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in it, by prayers in a language which many understand not, by making the efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the bare administration, whether our minds be prepared for them or not; by discouraging the reading the Scripture, which is our most certain rule of faith and life, by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the Primitive Church, as we are ready to defend; by the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences, by denying the Cup to the Laity, contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn Celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ; by making it in the power of any person to dispense contrary to the Law of God, in Oathes and Marriages; by making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters, more hainous, than disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things, as Marriage in a Priest, to be a greater crime, than Fornication.
By all which practices and opinions we assert, that there are so many hinderances to a good life, that none who have a care of their salvation, can venture their souls, in the communion of such a Church, which either enjoyns or publickly allows them.
3. Because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainty: By making the authority of the Scriptures to depend on the infallibility of the Church, when the Churches Infallibility must be proved by the Scripture: by making those things necessary to be believed, which if they be believed overthrow all foundations of faith, viz. That we are not to believe our senses in the plainest objects of them, as that bread which we see is not bread; upon which it follows, that tradition being a continued kind of sensation, can be no more certain, than sense it self; and that the Apostles might have been deceived in the body of Christ after the resurrection; and the Church of any Age in what they saw or heard. By denying to men the use of their judgement and reason as to the matters of faith proposed by a Church, when they must use it in the choice of a Church; by making the Churches power extend to make new Articles of faith, viz. by making those things necessary to be believed, which were not so before. By pretending to infallibility in determining Controversies, and yet not determining Controversies which are on foot among themselves. All which, and several other things which my designed brevity will not permit me to mention; tend very much to shake the faith of such, who have nothing else to rely on, but the authority of the Church of Rome.
3. I answer, That a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church, doth incurr a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome, and continues therein by invincible ignorance, and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one. For a Protestant is supposed, to have sufficient convictions of the Errors of the Roman Church, or is guilty of wilful ignorance, if he hath not; but although we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance, we are sure that wilful ignorance, or choosing a worse Church before a better, is a damnable sin, and unrepented of destroyes salvation.
To the second Question I answer, 1. I do not understand what is meant by a Christian in the Abstract, or in the whole latitude, it being a thing I never heard or read of before; and therefore may have some meaning in it, which I cannot understand. 2. But if the Question be as the last words imply it, Whether a Christian by vertue of his being so, be bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians? I answer affirmatively, and that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church, and not to leave that for a corrupt one, though called never so Catholick.