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
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