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
Divisions and breach of the Union of Love and Judgment are not of humane cognizance nor can the Church know who are or censure such Schismaticks 3. But Schism in the sense we now speak of consists in a Violation or breach of the External Church-Union when men refuse to Communicate with their Fellow-Christians in the Belief of the same Creed coming to the same publick Prayers and receiving the same Sacraments c. 4. This Schism must be a Criminal or Sinful Separation when those who separate have no Rational and firm grounds to justifie their Separation For if any Church hath Apostatiz'd from the Ancient and true Christian Faith and as necessary conditions of her Communion require of her Members to believe any thing in fide erroneous or to do any thing in facto impious then Separation from such a corrupted Church is so far from being Schismatical and sinful Impiety that it is a necessary duty This is on all sides confessed that 't is no Schism to Separate from an erroneous Church It being evident that no Christian can be bound to Communicate with any Church in Errors or Impieties and therefore may without any Schism lawfully Separate from such Churches whether that Church disbelieve and deny any Articles of the Ancient and True Christian Faith or which the Pope and his party do add new ones inconsistent with it and the truth of the Gospel and that Faith which our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles deliver'd to the Christian Church The Premisses concerning the Nature of Schism consider'd and as they are and must be granted I say That the Errors of the Church of Rome are so many and grievous that they are a just ground to condemn Her and to justifie our Separation from her I shall only instance in some few and the first concern the Sacred Scripture which 1. Many of her Writers speak most irreverently of the Sacred Scriptures tho' they be on all sides confess'd to be the Holy Word of God calling them nasus Cereus Regula Lesbia Vnsens'd Characters c. These and many more such occur in their greatest Writers as is notoriously known and cannot be deny'd Sure I am that She her self tells us That the reading of Scripture in any Vulgar tongue has by reason of mens rashness done more mischief than good And therefore the Church of Rome forbids all Reading the Scriptures in any Vulgar Tongue which consequence notwithstanding her Infallibility is most irrational and not better than this None shall drink any Wine because many through their temerity and drunkenness abuse it to their great hurt and detriment But this is not all nor tho' bad enough the worst of it Other of their Authors approv'd at Rome tell us That the reading of Scripture in a vulgar Tongue is so far from being profitable that it is pernicious to the people Nay horresco referens They farther say That the permitting of the People to read the Bible was the Invention of the Devil and a likelier means to build Babylon than Jerusalem Having thus given so foul a character of the Holy Scriptures to fright men foom reading them as dangerous and to the People pernicious they do in the next place 2. Absolutely prohibit the reading or hearing the Bible or any Summary or Compendium of it in any vulgar Tongue understood by the People and if any have any prohibited Books they are to bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor who are presently to see them burnt the Bible not excepted for it is all prohibited Books whatsoever c. Now this giving such an irreverent character of Holy Scripture and prohibiting the reading or hearing it in any vulgar Tongue is not only erroneous but highly unjust and to the People who are deny'd the benefit and comfort they might receive by reading the Scriptures pernicious which will evidently appear because such prohibition of reading or hearing the Bible in any vulgar Language is expresly contrary 1. To the Scripture it self 2. To the command and precepts of God in It. 3. To the practice of the Church of God both Jewish and Christian as may and to intelligent and impartial Judges will evidently appear 1. For the Jewish Church 't is undeniably certain That the Sacred Books of the Old Testament were either immediately by God himself or mediately by his Prophets given to the Jews in their own vulgar Tongue 2. That they were not given only to the Levites or learned amongst the Jews but to all Israel Levites or Laity Remember saies the Prophet the Law of Moses which I commanded in Horeb for all Israel with the Statutes and Judgments 3. And by the express command of God they were bound to read that Law in that vulgar Language to all Israel men women and children and to that end that they might learn to fear the Lord and keep his Statutes 4. And accordingly in praxi de facto it was read in their vulgar Tongue to men women and children and afterwards both the Law and Prophets were read in every Synagogue every Sabbath day 5. And that they had the Scriptures in the vulgar Tongue and could read and be directed by them as divine Oracles was the greatest and most profitable privilege and the man is Bless'd who read and did meditate in them day and night c. The Premisses consider'd I think 't is evident that their undervaluing the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading them in any vulgar Tongue is directly contradictory to the express command of God and practice of the Jewish Church the only true Church then before our Blessed Saviour had constituted the Christian Church of Jews and Gentiles 2. Concerning the Christian Church That the Scriptures were had and read by Christians either in the Originals or in Versions and Translations into other vulgar Tongues is an undeniable truth and indeed confess'd For 't is manifest that all Churches in Christendom anciently had and except the Roman to this day have the Scriptures and read them in their vulgar Tongues and the Church of Rome had and read the Scriptures in Latin which was for many ages their vulgar Tongue till it did degenerate into Italian 2. The Apostle commends Timothy that he had known the Scriptures from a child and that they were able to make him wise unto Salvation or as S. James expresseth it able to save his soul. The Scriptures which Timothy is said to know from a child were the Scriptures of the Old Testament little if any of the New being then writ when he was a child which he had and read in vulgar Tongue and such reading was so far from being what the Popish Writers and the Popes themselves say of them dangerous and pernicious to his Soul that if we will believe the Apostle it was a happy and powerful means for the Salvation of it 3. St. Paul preaches the Gospel