I believe ever will be guilty of 2. They contradict their own Martyrologies their Missals and Breviaries wherein they acknowledge many hundred Saints and Martyrs who lived and dyed in those 3 Centuries and in their Offices pray to them as to glorify'd Saints and Martyrs 3. But to put the case in short and beyond dispute it is certain there never was any truly General Council or any Synod wherein the Representatives of the Universal Church did meet and determine Controversies The greatest Council the Christian Church ever had was only Imperial of the Roman Empire not Universal of all Christendom few if any out of the Roman Empire being ever call'd or coming to any of those Councils we now call General or Oecumenical 'T is true there are several Councils as the first of Nice that of Constantinople that of Ephesus and Chalcedon c. which we commonly call Oecumenical or General Councils but then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence we call a Council Oecumenical must be taken in that signification it has in St. Luke There came a Decree from Augustus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole World should be taxed Now 't is evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there the Roman world only must be meant or the Roman Empire for Augustus had neither intention nor any Authority to tax any but his own Subjects So when the Emperours call'd Councils as is evident they did call all the first Oecumenical Councils they had neither Intention nor any Authority to call those Christians which were out of their Empire and none of their Subjects Now 't is evident that when the Nicene Council was call'd and others after it a very great part of Christendom was without the bounds of the Roman Empire whose Bishops as they were never call'd so they never came as may appear by the Subscriptions to the Councils themselves 4. Is it not irrational for them to boast of the Infallibility of their General Councils when their greatest Writers and Publishers of their Councils ridiculously contradict themselves and give us this distinction of General Councils 1. Generalia Concilia approbata 2. Concilia Gen. reprobata 3. Concilia Gen. partim approbata partim reprobata 4. Concilium Gen. nec approbatum nec reprobatum They mean the first of Pisa about the year 1409 which they will not approve nor reject In short if General Councils may be reprobate and rejected then sure they are not Infallible 5. It seems your Emissaries to perswade your People to desert the Church of England tell your Parishioners that the Church of England is in a miserable condition for want of what they have an Infallible Guide and Judge of Controversies For hence it is say they that our Church is divided into so many Sects and Factions some being Presbyterians some Independents some Quakers c. To this you may with great reason and truth reply That they have in the Roman Church more Sects and Factions than we have in England they differing in things of an higher nature such as concern the Being of the Papacy For to say nothing of the late great and hot differences and disputes between the Jansenists and Molinists between the Dominicans and their Adherents on the one side and the Jesuits and Franciscans on the other Their Church is divided into great Sects and Factions which differ in things which concern the foundation of their Church and Papacy For to omit others many in their Church publickly affirm and maintain 1. That the Pope is Infallible 2. That he is the Supream Head of their Church above all General Councils and that no Appeal lies from him to the Council 3. That his Supremacy is not only in this Ecclesiastical but at least indirectè in temporals too 4. That he has power to depose Kings as for other causes so for Heresie 5. and to absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and give away their Kingdoms And altho' these Opinions pass with approbation at Rome yet they are all of them deny'd and condemn'd by the Church of France and thousands more who publickly and in Print declare against them as Erroneous and Impious highly prejudicial to the Rights of Kings and temporal Princes and Inconsistent with the Peace of Christendom Now if our Sects in England have risen and continued because we have no Infallible Judge to determine the Controversie Then by a parity of Reason seeing their great Sects and differences in the Church of Rome remain undetermin'd it must follow that they want an Infallible Judge to determine those Controversies So that it is to give it no worse name a very strange confidence in your Roman Emissaries to think they can perswade Protestants to desert the Church of England because there are some Sects and Divisions in it and yet perswade them to Communicate with the Church of Rome in which there are far more and more material Sects and undetermin'd Divisions for this were as the Country Proverb is to perswade us out of the Frying Pan into the fire and instead of bettering it to put us in a worse condition Let them make it appear that they are indeed at Unity amongst themselves and no Sects or Divisions amongst them then this Argument may have some more shew of Probability but as the case now stands it is not only irrational but ridiculous I say some more shew of Probability yet no just proof For admit they were at Unity amongst themselves yet there are many other gross Errors and Superstitions which while retain'd by their Church makes all Communion with them impossible but enough of this if not too much for nothing can be to an Intelligent and Impartial Judge more evident than this That since the decease of the Apostles there never was any Man or Congregation or Council of Men who pretended to Infallibility for above a thousand years after our Blessed Saviour But the Roman Church is so far from having what she commonly and vainly boasts of Infallibility that there neither is nor ever was any Christian Church in the world in such a miserable condition for the great incertainty of her Faith and Religion which incertainty arises from her own Principles approv'd and receiv'd by the Supream Authority of that Church and they are two 1. From their requiring the Intention of the Minister as necessary to the real Being of every Sacrament 2. Their denying the certainty of our Senses 1. For the first that the Intention of the Minister is necessarily requir'd to the real Being of any Sacrament We have the Decree of Pope Eugenius expresly affirming it and he says tho' untruly that it was approbante Concilio Their Trent Council confirms the same as do other of their Authentick Books Now this Principle being as it is by them granted it evidently follows 1. That no man in their Church can be certain that he is a Christian or that there is any one true
Christian in the whole Church of Rome For if they be not baptiz'd then 't is certain they are no Christians nor Members of the Visible Church and that they are truly Baptiz'd is impossible for man certainly to know For if the Minister who Baptiz'd him did not intend it he is not Baptiz'd and what the Minister intended God only who knows the heart and our Intentions can certainly know It is true if I Baptize any Person I may certainly know my own Intentions that I did intend to baptize him and so I may be certain he is truly Baptiz'd but whether he who Baptiz'd me did intend it is impossible for me certainly to know So that although I may certainly know that another man is truly Baptiz'd yet no man in the Church of Rome can be certain that he is so All the assurance I can have that I am truly Baptiz'd and a Member of the Christian Church is from the Minister who Baptiz'd me But he being always Fallible and for ought I do or can know may be false such a testimony cannot assure me that I am truly Baptiz'd and indeed a Christian within the Church and then seeing Extra Ecclesiam non est salus it follows that for ought I do or can know I am in a miserable and damnable condition Now suppose a General Council call'd by the Pope or Emperor if they are not Christians I may be sure they are not Infallible Judges God as is and must be confess'd having never promised Infallible assistance to any without the Christian Church and that they are Christians I can never certainly know because 't is impossible for me to be assur'd that they have been truly Baptiz'd by any Minister really intending it Now admit they were Infallible Judges yet they cannot be so to me who can never be sure they are so For I can have no more Assurance of their Infallibility than I have of their Christianity of which 't is impossible for me to be assur'd seeing it is impossible for me certainly to know whether they be Baptiz'd 2. Upon the same Principle it is impossible for any certainly to know whether there be any one true Priest in the whole Papacy and consequently that there is any true Bishop for it is certain every true Bishop must be a Priest now if none can be certain that there is any true Bishop or Priest in the Roman Church then seeing it is certain that Bishops and Priests and true Orders are necessary to the Being of a True Church it evidently follows that they are so far from being certain that their Church is Infallible that they neither are nor can be certain that their Church is any True Church at all 3. Upon the same Principle Marriage being with them a Sacrament and the Intention of the Minister who marries any being necessary to make the Marriage good and valid all marryed People in the Church of Rome for ought they do or can know not knowing the Intention of the Priest who marryed them may live in perpetual fornication and their children if they have any illegitimate as begot by Fornication and not in lawful Marriage 4. And on the same Principle none in the Church of Rome can be certain that the Bread in the Eucharist is truly Consecrate because the Priests intention who Consecrates cannot possibly be known to them and if it be not truly Consecrate it as is confess'd remains Bread and then as is confess'd too they in Worshipping it are most impious Idolaters worse than they of Lapland who worship a piece of Red Cloth c. So that this is the miserable condition of all Communicants in the Church of Rome that for ought they do or can certainly know they are most impious Idolaters Now let any intelligent and pious Person judge whether our most wise and gracious God hath left his Church in such a miserable condition that it shou'd be in the power of wicked Ministers to make all his People abominable Idolaters 2. The Second thing I nam'd from which the great incertainty of the Roman Churches Religion tho' they vainly brag of Infallibility arises is their denying the certainty of our Senses For this being deny'd it will evidently follow that the Roman Catholicks neither have nor can have any certainty of their Religion That this may appear consider 1. That our Blessed Saviour ordain'd his Apostles to be Witness of his Resurrection and that he had a real Body and was not a Spirit 2. And that they might be sufficient Witnesses He appear'd several times to them that they might see and touch and handle him blames them for not believing those who had seen him after his Resurrection and S. Luke tells us that these were infallible proofs of his Resurrection c. and so thinks S. John too 3. The Roman Catholicks deny this certainty of our Senses and tell us that the Bread in the Eucharist after Consecration is not Bread but the very glorifyed Body of our Blessed Saviour tho' all our Senses assure us That 't is Bread still and tell us that we must not trust our Senses but believe it to be his Body Well ask them how they know it is his Body they say by Faith but how came they by that Faith They say as the Text saith by hearing But then 1. Sense they say is no certain Assurer of what we have by it 2. If all my five Senses may be deceiv'd in judging the Wafer to be Bread certainly their Hearing which is but one may be deceiv'd And then all their Faith and the certainty of it depending upon their Hearing none of the Senses according to their Principles being to be trusted in matters of Faith because they may deceive us it manifestly follows That they are so far from Infallibility that they neither have nor can have any so much as moral certainty of any thing they Believe But if not too much enough of this For indeed their pretences to Infallibility are so weak that they deserve no confutation I come now to the second thing which you desir'd me to do that is to give some Reasons to justifie our Separation from Rome that it may appear that we are not what they commonly miscal us Schismaticks And here it is to be consider'd 1. That Schism to pass by all other significations of the word is a Criminal or sinful violation or a breach of Ecclesiastical or Church-Union which Union is two fold 1. Internal consisting in an Union of Judgment and that mutual Love and Charity which Christians ought to have mutually one to another 2. External consisting in an outward profession of the same Faith Communion in the same Liturgies and Sacred Offices and Sacraments 2. Schism as now we speak of it does not consist in a violation or breach of that Internal Union of Judgment and Love tho' this may and is call'd Schism in Scripture and is a sin for such Internal
the Cup as well as the Bread and although it was the practice and custome of all other Christian Churches in the World to this day to receive it so and as Greg. de Valentia confesses of the Roman Church till a little before the Council of Constance yet that Council in contradiction to all this grounds the prohibition of the Cup upon which is most false a most ancient and approv'd custome of the Church to receive only in one kind which custome they say has the obligation of a Law and ought to be observ'd This Decree of the Council to say no worse is highly irrational For can any intelligent person think that a late custom of a particular the Latin Church should be sufficient to warrant Communion in one kind and taking away the Cup from the Laity when the institution and express command of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles did as 't is evident S. Paul did require the People to receive in both kinds and the perpetual practice and custome of the Vniversal Church of Christ even of Rome herself for above 1200 years was to give the Sacrament in both kinds However what was most erroneously decreed at Constance is confirm'd at Trent and the Cup taken from the Laity though both the Emperour and the King of France by their Bishops in that Council earnestly desir'd that it might be restored Seeing then that the Premisses consider'd it is or â—o Impartial Judges may be evident That the Church of Rome injuriously forbids the Laity and all Priests save he who Consecrates to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament and our Blessed Saviour expresly commands the contrary saying Drink ye All of this and in obedience to his command they did All drink it I suppose we may justly say to the Pope and his party what the Apostles on the like occasion said to the high Priest and the Council of the Jews It is better to obey God than men and to separate from the Communion of that Church which with great wrong and Iniquity denyes us the Communion of the Cup which our Blessed Saviour commands us to drink in Remembrance of him reason 4 4. Another Reason to justifie our Separation from Rome that it was not Sinful nor Schismatical may be taken from their denying Matrimony to the Clergy against the light of Nature of Scripture and the Judgment and Practice of the Church of God Jewish and Christian in all Ages Concerning this I shall only set down some few particulars in short and leave them to your prudence to use these or add such other particulars as circumstances consider'd may seem to you more convenient And here I consider 1. That here in England not only in the Saxon but also in the Norman times the Secular Clergy were married concerning which we have a signal passage in Matth. Paris out of Rog. Wendover as also in our other Historians Matth. Paris tells us 1. That Pope Gregory the 7 th in a General Council prohibited all married Priests to celebrate any Divine Offices and forbid the Laity to hear any of their Masses which was in the year 1074. 2. That this was a New thing and an Innovation brought into the Church by that Pope 3. That many believed it to be a rash and inconsiderate act of that Pope against the Judgment of the Holy Fathers 4. And then he tells of the horrid effects and ill consequences which follow upon it However to say nothing of the Ethiopick or Greek Churches who never did receive the Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the Celibacy of their Priests by the Premisses it is certain that even in the Roman Church for above 1000 years after Christ Priests were some of them marry'd and afterwards when they were prohibited to marry it was judged to be as the Historian tells us 1. An Innovation 2. A Rash and Inconsiderate act 3. Against the Judgment of the Holy Fathers 4. And that it had mischievous consequences scarce any Heresie having made a greater Schism in the Church than this Prohibition of Priests marriages 2. But however the Popes prohibition of Priests marriages was censur'd then yet it prevail'd afterwards in the Roman Church as may appear to omit others by the Council of Trent For that Council tho' the French were earnest for the marriage of the Clergy condemns all those who say that the Priests marriages are lawful or valid if they do marry This they know all Protestants say and as they have good reason believe and so they lye under the Councils Anathema But tho' they are so fierce against their Priests Marriages yet their Canon-Law will allow him who has no wife to keep a Concubine and it shall be no hindrance to him but he may receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in contradiction to the Apostle 1 Cor. 5.11 But of late they will not allow at least they will not publickly own it the keeping of Concubines yet they do say that if a Priest keep a Concubine and commit fornication tho' it be a sin yet it is a less sin than to have a wife of his own that is in plain and true English it is a greater sin with them to disobey the Pope and his party who disapprove and prohibit Priests Marriages than to disobey our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles who approve and in some cases as to avoid burning and preserve Chastity expresly command it as shall hereafter evidently appear 3. And here it will be worth our time and pains diligently to consider what the reason and cause is why the Pope and his party so severely forbid the Marriages of their Clergy For 1. It cannot be for Religion and Reformation of their Clergy to make them and their lives more conformable to the Gospel and the Laws of the primitive and purer Christianity For 't is evident that the Gospel approves the Marriages of the Clergy and several of the Apostles themselves were marryed and so were the Bishops and Priests in the Primitive and purest times of Christianity as is both in itself evident and confess'd by our Adversaries even by the Jesuites the most zealous Advocates for the Errors of the Roman Church So that the disapproving and prohibition of Priests Marriages is so far from being a matter of True Religion and Reformation of them and their lives according to the Gospel and purest times of Christianity that 't is directly contrary to it 2. Nor can the Prohibition of Priests Marriages be for this end and reason to make their Clergy better men and more pious Christians For upon our Adversaries own principles it deprives them of the good means which God himself has instituted for their Justification and Salvation For First The Trent Fathers tell us That all true justice is either begun or increas'd or repair'd by the Sacraments Secondly They say that Matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by our Blessed