A FEW PLAIN REASONS WHY A PROTESTANT OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND Should not Turn Roman Catholick By a real Catholick of the CHURCH of ENGLAND 1 Thess. 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good IMPRIMATUR Jo. Battely Septemb. 15. 1687. LONDON Printed for R. Clavel at the Peacock at the West End of St. Paul's MDCLXXXVIII My Reverend Friend I Received Yours wherein you tell me That some Emissaries have of late earnestly solicited some of your Parish and so belonging to your Cure and Charge to desert the Church of England and turn as they would be call'd Roman Catholicks The Motives amongst some others they principally insist upon you say are these Two First That if they return to their Mother Church of Rome they will have what they say Protestants neither have nor pretend to a sure and Infallible Guide to secure them from all Error and Heresies which will be a great Blessing and comfort to them Secondly They will free themselves from the great and mortal sin of Schism For the Protestants they say neither have nor can have any just reason to desert the Catholick Church of Rome and so their Separation from it is evidently Schismatical You desire me to give You some directions how to Reply to these Pretences and fortifie your People against them who are not skilled in such Controversies You should rather have apply'd your self to your Diocesan for his Abilities and immediate concern to assist you being more than mine I doubt not but he would willingly have assisted you But seeing you say you are not particularly known to him and therefore not willing by any such Address to trouble him and seeing we are bound to give a reason of the hope and faith which is in us for the Confirmation of some and Conviction of others I shall in obedience to your Command crave leave to say a few things and leave the management of them to your Prudence according to the several Circumstances of Persons Times and Places wherein You may have occasion to make use of any of them And here 1. In the general I shou'd advise That when you have occasion to discourse of any of these Points with the Romish Priests and Emissaries who endeavour to seduce any of your Parishioners you remember and observe that good Rule in the Gospel If any man be overtaken in a fault You who are spiritual restore him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the spirit of meekness All railing all bitter and provoking language should be avoided and then by your good Reasons and a Christian and Meek urging of them you may possibly bring your Adversary to see the Errors of his own Church which he endeavours to propagate in Ours 2. For the Infallibility of their Church of which they continually and without any thing like a good reason so vainly boast of I consider 1. That if it did which neither does nor even can really appear that they had an Infallible Guide we of the Church of England are not so irrational as not to follow an Infallible Guide nor so simple to take an ignis fatuus for a real and true fire and believe they have such a Guide because against evident reason they confidently say so 2. They are not yet agreed amongst themselves who is their Infallible Guide And can they think it possible for them to perswade us that they have an Infallible Guide when they themselves know not who it is For 1. Many of them place this Infallibility in the Pope so Gratian and the Canonists who follow him who tells us That all the Pope's Sanctions are to be taken as if they had been confirmed by the divine mouth of S. Peter And the Gloss and Marginal note in another place tells us That to dispute or doubt of the goodness of any of the Pope's actions is a mortal sin and sacrilege So we have it in the best Edition of their Canon-Law with the Glosses So Pope Leo 10. in his Bull against Luther tells us That neither the Roman Church nor any of the Popes ever err'd in any of their Constitutions And to this purpose the Jesuits make the Popes as Peter's Successors Infallible not only in matters of Faith but of Fact too as appears by their famous Theses publickly defended in France 2. Many place the Infallibility in the Pope and Church or General Council concurring So the Clergy of France 3. Others in a General Council without the Pope So the Council of Pisa and Constance and Basil in which several Popes are condemn'd as Hereticks Schismaticks c. and the supream Power to be in the Council and that Infallible Now is it not unreasonable for them to boast of an Infallible Judge of Controversies and think to perswade us to believe it when they themselves know not who that Judge is If Sempronius were very sick and Caius coming to him and pitying his condition should tell him that there was an excellent Physician in that City but knew not who he was nor where to find him Sempronius would have little comfort or benefit from such a story No more can we from them who tell us with great confidence but without any just proof or probability that they have an Infallible Guide in their Church but can neither tell us who it is or where to find him But to manifest the exceeding vanity of their pretence to an Infallible Guide there are certain and to all Impartial Judges evident reasons to demonstrate That neither the Pope nor Council nor both together are Infallible 1. For the Pope they say that he is Infallible as S. Peter's Successor and as Peter was Vicar of Christ. But this is gratis dictum without any just proof or probability For 1. Admit S. Peter was 25 years as they say Bishop of Rome which is evidently untrue yet that he left Infallibility to his Successor there is an Assertion which has no ground in Scripture or Antiquity the Popes themselves not so much as pretending to Infallibility for a thousand years after our Blessed Saviour 2. S. Paul was an Apostle and as Infallible as Peter and planted many Churches in Asia Macedonia and Achaia c. and left his Successors there But it is confess'd that S. Paul did not leave his Infallibility to any of his Successors not to Timothy at Ephesus nor Titus in Crete and therefore that Peter should which S. Paul did not leave his Infallibility to his Successor is a Position for which they neither bring nor can bring any just proof 3. They say that Peter was before he came to Rome Bishop of Antioch 7 years and 't is certain and confess'd that his Successors at Antioch tho' that was his first Bishoprick had no such Infallibility left them by Peter and therefore I desire to know how his Successors at Rome his second Bishoprick come to have the privilege of Infallibility which his Successors at Antioch his
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
Saviour and confers grace And therefore the forbidding the Clergy to marry deprives them of that means which by their own confession our Blessed Saviour instituted to confer Grace and therefore the Celibate and single Life of the Priests cannot be a means to make them better men or more pious Christians seeing it deprives them of the means which our Blessed Saviour instituted to make them such If it be said that Matrimony was not a Sacrament instituted for Priests as the Sacrament of Orders was not for the Laity To this I say First If Matrimony was as they say a Sacrament instituted by our Blessed Saviour to confer Grace then whoever was legally married according to the mind of Christ and the Law of the Gospel received Grace by it Secondly Several of the Apostles and Primitive Bishops and Priests were so legally married and so had the Sacrament of Matrimony which in the judgment of the Church of Rome did really confer Grace to all qui non ponebant obicem who by their own Impiety did not hinder the gracious effect of that Sacrament Whence we may evidently conclude that if the Sacrament of Marriage did as our Adversaries say it did confer Grace on all whose impiety did not hinder the effect of it then certainly it conferr'd Grace on the Apostles and the Apostolical Bishops and Priests in their time it being irrational and uncharitable to think that the impiety of those excellent and Divinely inspired Persons should be so great as to hinder the effect of that Sacrament Now if the married Apostles did receive Grace signified and sealed to them by that Sacrament so might their Successors too to this very day had not the Church of Rome by prohibiting Priests to marry depriv'd them of that Sacrament and so of that Grace and Spiritual Benefit they might have received by it So that although the Pope and his party might pretend the pious ends above mention'd for their prohibition of Priests marriages as they want not fair pretences for foul Actions yet 't is evident they were but vain pretences seeing the prohibition of those marriages is so far from being a means to attain those ends that it utterly overthrows them both 3. But the true reason why at Trent they prohibited the Clergy to marry was because the Popes greatness and interest in all Countreys where Popery prevail'd would be lost if Priests were permitted to marry as evidently appears by the reason given in the Trent Council by the greatest Advocates for Rome why the marriage of the Priests was deny'd tho' the Emperor and the French desir'd it for Father Paul of Venice thus expresses it It is plain say the great Advocates for Rome and the Popes Authority that marryed Priests will turn their affections to their Wives and Children and by consequence to their house and Countrey so that the strict dependence which the Clergy hath upon the Apostolick See would cease and to grant marriage to Priests would destroy the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and make the Pope to be Bishop of Rome only So that their prohibition of marriages was to make the Clergy faithful subjects to the Pope and to depend upon him and not on their King and Country where they were born and lived And hence came the Papal exemptions of the Clergy from the Jurisdiction of all temporal Princes so far that they deny the Clergy to be Subjects to Kings and therefore cannot be guilty of any Treason against them They condemn this Proposition as erroneous if not Heretical Sacerdotes Principibus Jure Divino subditi But this Rebellious doctrine is so generally and publickly aspersed by their Canonists Casuists and other approved Writers of the Church of Rome that I neither need nor shall say any more to prove it By the Premisses it may appear that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in disapproving Priests marriages especially for such unjust and unworthy ends is erroneous and their practice the occasion of great scandal Which will farther appear because our infinitely good and gracious God has ever approved and his Church in all Ages practised the contrary And here consider 1. That Marriage was instituted by God himself before the Fall while Adam was in Innocence so that the Institution of Marriage is divine whereas the Prohibition of it is only humane as is confess'd and for unjust and unworthy ends 2. In the Patriarchal Ages before Moses and the Law there were Priests as well as Lay people and the Primogenitus or First-born as is known and confess'd had Imperium and Sacerdotium was both Prince and Priest. So that the Priests in that interval of time were certainly married 3. Under the Mosaical Law it is as certain and confess'd that the Priests and Levites were marryed and the Succession of them continued per Generationem Naturalem For had their Marriages been prohibited one Tribe had necessarily perished 4. In the time of the Gospel the Marriage of the Clergy was approved by God and as is and must be confess'd was practised by the Apostles and Apostolical Clergy Nor are such Marriages only approved but to avoid Fornication expresly commanded in the Gospel Continence is Dei donum a gift which he has not given to all as is evident and confess'd and then Marriage is the Means appointed by God to preserve Chastity and where that is forbidden as in the Church of Rome it is abominable pollutions will be the fatal consequence seeing nothing can be more irrational than to think that of so many hundred thousands to whom Marriage is forbid in the Church of Rome men and women in the strength and flourish of their Age all should have ability to live Chastly neglecting the means which God himself has appointed to preserve it To conclude this point This Prohibition of the Clergy to Marry had we no other reason were sufficient to justifie our Separation from the Roman Communion especially seeing such Prohibition of Marriage is declared to be a mark and indelible character of Antichrist from whose Communion we are commanded to separate * 1 Pet. 3.15 16. * Gal. 6.1 1 Pet. 3.15 ‖ That the Church of Rome was Infallible no man before Gregory the 7 th ever said He tells us indeed in his Dictatus Papae Num. 22. Quod Romana Ecclesia nunquam erravit nec Scriptura Teste in perpetuum errabit Vide Edmundi Richerii Historiam Concil Generalium cap. 13. pag. 197. Edit Colon. 1680. (a) Sic omnes Apostolicae sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquà m ipsius divini Petri voce firmatae Can. Sic omnes 2 Dist. 19. (b) Glossa Quia enim Dist. 40. cap. 1. (c) Ib. pag. 2113. Ed. Par. 1612. (d) Par. 1612. Greg. 13. jussie editum ad exemplar Romanum diligentèr recognitum (e) Vid. Conc. per. Pet. Crab Tom. 3. p. 717. col 1. (f) Ib. p. 718. col 1. (g) See the Jesuits printed Theses