A53737:87
A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux
A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux wherein the principles of the Roman church, as to moderation, unity and truth are examined and sundry important controversies concerning the rule of faith, papal supremacy, the mass, images, &c. discussed / by John Owen.
London: printed for Ph. Stephens, 1664
A Vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat Lux. › Chapter 4
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again, I told you she might fall by Idolatry, and so neither by Apostasy Heresy, or Schism. To which you reply, Good Sir, Idolatry is a mixed misdemeanour both in faith and manners; I speak of the single one of faith; and he that falls by Idolatry, if he keep still some parts of Christianity entire, he falls by Heresy, by Apostasy if he keep none. I am persuaded you are the first that ever gave this description of Idolatry, and the last that will do so; it is a mixed misdemeanour in faith and manners. Manners you speak of in contradistinction to Faith, and you so explain your self, in which sense they relate only unto moral conversation, regulated by the second Table. That Idolatry hath been and is constantly attended with corruption in manners, the Apostle declares, Rom. 1. and I willingly grant; but how in its self, or its own nature, it should come to be a mixed misdemeanour in faith and in manners, I know not; neither can you tell me which is the fleshy, which is the fishy part of this Dagon; what it is in it that is a misdemeanour in faith, and what in manners. According to this description of yours, an Idolater should be an ill mannered, or an unmannerly Heretic. But you speak of the single misdemeanour in faith; but who gave you leave so to restrain your enquiry? I allowed you before to except against one instance, whereby many a Church hath fallen; but if you will except Idolatry and Manners also, your endeavour to provide a shelter for your guilt, is shameful and vain. For what you except out of your enquiry, if you confess not to have been, yet you do that it may be, or might have been: And you do wisely to let your Adversary know, that he is to strike you only where you suppose your self armed, but by all means must let your naked parts alone; and ⟨p. 53⟩doubtless he must needs be very wise who will take your advice. The Church of Judah was once a pure Church in the days of David; how came she then to fall? by Apostasy Heresy, or Schism? I answer if you will give me leave, she fell by Idolatry, and corruption of manners, against both which the Prophets were protestants, 2 King. 17. 13.—[Greek or Hebrew] God protested against them by his Prophets. Again the same Church reformed in the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel,—[Greek or Hebrew] the men of the Great Congregation, was a pure Church; how did it fall?