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
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
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
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
first Bishoprick had not most certain it is that Infallibility is a personal privilege depending solely and wholely on the free grace and gift of God nor had ever any Prophet or Apostle power to transfer it to their Successors or any body else and therefore unless they can make it appear from Scripture or some Divine Revelation which is impossible that God has granted and given Infallibility to the Pope as Peter's Successor and Christ's Vicar their pretence to it will be what indeed it is very irrational 4. And this Position that the Pope is not Infallible does farther appear to say nothing of particular Writers by the clear and undeniable Testimonies of National and General Councils 1. The Church of France in a late and National Assembly of her Clergy expresly denyes the Popes Infallibility as much as we Protestants whom they are pleased commonly to miscal Hereticks 2. Their General Council of Basil tells us That several Popes have fall'n into Errors and Heresies And again it often happens and may happen as that Council says That the Pope may err 3. Their General Council of Constance amongst other crimes declares Pope Benedict 13. a Notorious Schismatick incorrigible and a pertinacious Heretick 4. To omit Pope Vigilius condemn'd for Heresie in the Fifth General Council which is by Dr. Crakanthorp fully and evidently proved I shall only add which is undeniable and authentick Authority against the Popes Infallibility That the Sixth General Council held at Constantinople in Trullo did condem and Anathematize Pope Honorius And tho' some Zealots for Rome and the Popes Infallibility such as Bellarmine and Baronius have endeavoured to excuse Honorius and question the Authority of the Council and the Truth of those things which in the Council were urged against him yet the evidence on which they condemned Honorius for an Heretick was undoubtedly good even his own Epistles read in the Council which Bellarmine pretends were fictitious But both the Authority of the Council and of Honorius his Epistles which were the Evidence on which they condemn'd him are so fully and evidently justified to omit many others by a Learned Sorbon Doctor and a Roman Catholick that I neither need nor shall say any more of this particular but refer the Reader who desires more satisfaction to that Judicious and learned Author I shall only add in short two things which to me seem very material 1. That notwithstanding that Sixth General Council condemned Honorius for an Heretick yet it was approv'd and receiv'd as a General Council by Pope Leo the second the next Successor save one to Honorius as evidently appears by his own Epistle to the Emperors and their own Roman Breviary of their most correct Edition And to make it more evident that the Sixth Synod and the condemnation of Pope Honorius for Heresie was anciently approv'd even in the Church of Rome their own General Council the Second of Nice is a witness beyond exception as by the words and place in the Margin may evidently appear 2. But that which may seem strange tho' it be most true by the Decree of the Council of Constance every Pope at his Consecration was to take a solemn Oath to believe and maintain amongst other Councils the 6. Synod of which we are now speaking and every part and particle of it and consequently they were bound to approve that Synod and their Condemnation of Pope Honorius as an Heretick For this condemnation of Honorius it was evidently an Act of the 6 Synod and the Popes by the said Decree of the Council of Constance were bound amongst other Councils mentioned in the Decree to believe and profess the Acts of that sixth Synod Vsque ad unum Apicem for so the Decree expresly says The Premisses consider'd I believe it may and will appear to all intelligent and impartial Judges that the Opinion of the Popes Infallibility is not only without but against manifest reason For 1. 'T is certain that the Greek Asiatick and Aethiopick Churches never believ'd but expresly oppos'd it 2. For the Western or Latin Church it is evident by their General Councils of Nice Pisa Constance and Basil in which several Popes have been declar'd Hereticks that they were so far from believing it tho' Pope Gregory the 7 th was for it that they condemn'd and Synodically declar'd against it for 1500 years till Leo the 10 th in his Lateran Council in the year 1513. did again set on foot that Apocryphal opinion of the Popes Infallibility So that it is not only erroneous but a very late and novel invention That a General Council is not Infallible is a truth from many cogent and undeniable reasons so evident that as there is no need I shou'd so it is not my purpose to say much only I shall in short say a few things and refer them to your prudence to make use of all or any of them as to you circumstances consider'd may seem convenient Here then I desire it may be consider'd 1. That a General Council is never so much as named in Scripture nor any promise of Infallibility given it The Council of the Apostles which was no General Council was Infallible and might truly say Sic visum est spiritui sancto nobis Because the Apostles had the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost But that any General Council had any such Assistance truly to say after their Decrees Sic visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis Tho' that of Trent and others vainly pretend to it is an Assertion without all proof or probability 2. But there is no necessity of such an Infallible Guide as a General Council because Christians for several Ages have attain'd Heaven and Eternal Salvation who never had any General Council to be their Guide For 't is certain and on all sides confess'd that the first Nicene Council which was held An. Christ. 325. was the first General Council the Christian Church ever had Now I desire to know and you may ask those who endeavour to seduce your Parishioners whether the Christians in those 325. years when there was no General Council were saved or not If they were saved then 't is evident that a General Council is not necessary to guide us to Heaven seeing Christians for 325. years obtain'd Salvation and yet in all that time there was no General Council to guide them But if it be said Christians for want of a General Council to guide them were not saved in those three Centuries Then 1. They contradict the sense of Christendom and the constant testimony of Fathers and Historians who universally tell us of thousands not only of pious Christians but of many hundred thousands of pious Confessors and Martyrs Now to say that they were not saved who laid down their lives for Christ and his Gospel is such an uncharitable and unchristian Censure as no sober Christian ever did or
temporal things and so the loss of them less considerable But in our Blessed Saviour's Will and Testament the Legacies are Spiritual the promises of Grace here and eternal Glory hereafter and therefore to take away the Gospel from the People in any Language understood by them so that they cannot certainly know the Promises or their duties requir'd for the attaining of them is as I said not only injurious but pernicious to the poor people detain'd from the only means to know those things which in order to their Salvation they are by the Law of God and the Gospel bound to know For 1. Without the knowledge of Christ and belief in him there is no possibility of Salvation Joh. 3.16 Act. 10.43 Joh. 17.3 And 2. such knowledge of our Blessed Saviour whereon we may fiducially and with certainty rely can no where be had but in Scripture the only Infallible rule of our Faith. 3. Now the Pope and his party severely prohibiting the People to read or have the Scriptures or any part of them in any vulgar Language which they understand do by consequence deprive them of the only sure and certain means of their Salvation Which how unbecoming it is the pretended Successor of S. Peter who was commanded by our Blessed Saviour to feed his Sheep not to famish them by taking the Scriptures from them and how pernicious to the poor People let the Reader judge 4. And that the Pope quantum in se est deprives the People of the knowledge of Scripture besides what is above said I shall only add a signal passage out of a late Popes Bull wherein he condemns a French Translation of their own vulgar Latine in these words The said Gallican Version of the New Testament wheresoever Printed or hereafter to be Printed as rash and mischievous differing from the vulgar Latin and scandalous to the ignorant We by our Apostolical Authority condemn and prohibit so that hereafter none of what Degree or condition soever he be under pain of Excommunication shall dare or presume to read have sell print or cause it to be printed and whosoever has that French Translation of the N. Testament he is bound under pain of Excommunication to deliver it presently to the Ordinary of the place or the Inquisitors notwithstanding any thing whatsoever which may be to the contrary Thus Pope Clement the 9 th about 20 years since condemns and prohibits the Gospel of Jesus Christ in French a vulgar Tongue and we are told by a great and learned Casuist of their own that long before him Innocent the 3 d. condemned and prohibited a French Translation of the Bible Azorius in the place cited gives the reasons why the Scriptures are not to be permitted to be read or had in any vulgar Tongue where his irreverent speeches of the holy Word of God are so many and horrid that I shall not offend the pious Reader nor pollute these papers with them he who would be satisfied may see them in the place cited The Premisses consider'd I believe that intelligent and impartial Judges who love and seek truth will think that we had just reason to forsake the Church of Rome which unjustly in contradiction to Scripture and the practice of all Christian Churches except her self took the Holy Scriptures from us and consequently depriv'd us of the happiness which God himself had given us to be a sure and sufficient ground of our spiritual comfort and hope of Heaven For tho' they are pleas'd to contradict it the Apostle assures us That whatever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope The Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Ghost and given to the Church not to be lockt up in an unknown Language but for our Learning and a firm foundation of our comfort and hope of Heaven 2. The Gospel was dictated by the Holy Ghost and given to this very end that it might be an effectual and powerful means to bring us to true Faith and by it to eternal life So the Apostle or Holy Spirit by him tells us These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and believing them might have life 3. Nor is the Scripture an imperfect and defective means or without Traditions unable to beget such a Faith as will bring us to eternal life For the Apostle who knew better expresly tells Timothy That the Scriptures were ABLE to make him wise unto Salvation 4. Lastly Nor are the Scriptures so obscurely penn'd as they are commonly and most unjustly slander'd by our Adversaries that to ordinary people and understandings they are unintelligible I shall not go about to prove this being abundantly done by many of our Protestant Divines already I shall only add one testimony of a Cardinal I mean Bessarion who at the Council of Florence in a Speech to his Countrey-men expresly says That in Scripture ALL Doctrines of Faith are either plainly explain'd or if they be hid they may without difficulty be found out This Assertion of Bessarion is to me and all Protestants an evident and clear truth and is more considerable in that a Roman Cardinal dares and does publickly attest it in contradiction to the receiv'd Doctrine of the Church of Rome And while I am writing this there providentially comes in my way something concerning the taking away the Scriptures from the people which if I mistake not is very pertinent to our present purpose For 1. I find that Dioclesian in his Bloody Persecution of the Christians published an Edict that the Christians should bring in their Bibles to be publickly burnt They knew by the suggestion of Satan and their Pagan Priests that the Scriptures were the great and most effectual means to convert Pagans to Christianity and confirm them in it and therefore they did cunningly and impiously endeavour to deprive the Christians of the Benefit of those Sacred Books because no other Books were so destructive of their Pagan Religion and therefore they might not read them 2. And let sober and pious men consider whether the Pope does not for the same reason forbid the Scriptures to the People because no other Books make a clearer discovery of their Errors For they absolutely forbid the Bible in any vulgar Language whatsoever so that none of their Superiors could Licence them to have it and yet permit the abominable Turkish Alcoran to be read in a vulgar Tongue This may justly seem strange that the Gospel of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ shall be absolutely prohibited and yet the Turkish Alcoran permitted to be read in a vulgar Tongue 3. Tho' the Pagans permitted not the Christians to have the Scriptures yet never any Christian Church no not the Roman for above 1000 years after our Blessed Saviour depriv'd the People of the use and benefit of the Sacred Scriptures In France