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
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
they had the Scriptures in their vulgar Tongue till Pope Innocent the third which was somewhat above 1200 years after our Blessed Saviour condemn'd and prohibited the reading or hearing the Scriptures in any vulgar Idiome And amongst impertinent things which they mis-call reasons which they then and others since alledg'd against reading Scripture in a vulgar Tongue this was one That such reading of the Scriptures would be the cause of several Heresies Seditions Schisms and almost infinite other mischiefs Certainly all good Christians who as surely they are bound love God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will judge this to be what indeed it is not sober reasoning but railing at and reviling the Holy Scriptures and that Holy Spirit who did dictate them to be a proper and powerful means to bring us to the knowledge of the truth and Salvation by it For if the Scripture be not a good means to procure such an end then they must say which if they do 't is no better than blasphemy That the Holy Spirit could not or would not give a good means for that end for which he intended it But it is certain that the Holy Scriptures are so far from being what they untruly say a cause of Heresie Sedition or Schism that no Book in the world does or can condemn those crimes with that clear evidence and Authority which the Bible doth Especially seeing the Scripture is the sole authentick Rule to know what Doctrines are de fide and what heretical and therefore I have often wonder'd what Heresies they mean when they say that reading the Scripture is the cause of Heresie seeing no Doctrine is or can be de fide a Doctrine or Article of our Christian Faith which is not contain'd in Scripture that being the adequate Rule and measure of our Christian Faith nor can any thing be truly and properly Heresie which is not contrary to some Divine truth reveal'd in Scripture But Azorius and others tell me that Articles of Faith and Heresies are not to be measured and defined by their agreement or disagreement with Scripture only but also by their agreement and disagreement with the Doctrinal definitions of the Church of Rome So that not only the Articles of the Apostles Creed of that of Nice of Constantinople and Chalcedon are de fide and all contrary Doctrines Heresies in which we and they agree but also all the Articles of their new Trent Creed first published by Pope Pius the 4 th in the year 1564. are at Rome de fide and all Doctrines contrary to any Article of that new Creed they call Heresies and condemn them Here I consider 1. That all Protestants do believe and profess many Doctrines contradictory to the Articles of their New Trent-Creed as is confess'd 2. And the Sacred Scriptures are the reason and ground why we do so which in express terms or by evident consequence condemns many of their Doctrines as their worshipping of Images denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests that do not Consecrate forbidding the Clergy to marry c. And yet they mis-cal us Hereticks and our Doctrines maintain'd against them tho' consonant to the Sacred Scripture Heresies and accuse Scripture as the cause of Heresies not that it is the cause of Heresies properly and truly so call'd which are errors contrary to the infallible Rule of Faith for this would make Scripture contradict it self but because it is the true ground and reason why we believe and profess many Doctrines which are contrary to the erroneous definitions of their Church so that we confess the Scripture is the cause of those things which tho' real truths they mis-cal Heresies But to deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of the Scriptures upon so irrational and frivolous a pretence is evidently injust in them and not only dangerous but pernicious to the people So that had we no other reason but this the depriving the people of the use and benefit of the Scriptures it were abundantly sufficient to justifie our Separation from Rome reason 2 But Secondly The Church of Rome does not only deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of Scriptures prohibiting the reading or having them in any vulgar Language by them understood but for the same reason they deprive them of the benefit and Edification they might and ought to have had in the publick service of God all their Liturgies and publick Sacred Offices Missals Breviaries c. being in Latin a Language not understood by the people and many times not by the Priests themselves who not understanding the Language in which the Publick Service of God was celebrated could not possibly know to whom whether to God or Saint or Angels or for what the Priest prayed and so could not which the Apostle thinks they should in publick Prayers and Thanksgiving say Amen to any thing said by him who did officiate For this practice of the Church of Rome in having their Liturgies in a Tongue not understood by the People that it is unjust in them and pernicious to the People I shall only say two things 1. That it is expresly against Scripture and the directions the Apostle has given against it He spends a whole Chapter to this purpose and with so much zeal and so many reasons demonstrates that publick Prayers and Divine Service ought not to be in an unknown Language that it is a wonder that any who pretend to be Christians should as they of Rome do dare to contradict an Apostle of Jesus Christ and that Holy Spirit by which he spoke I know that some of the greatest Writers for Rome and the Vindication of their Sacred Offices in an unknown Tongue indeavour to Answer the Apostles reasons in this Chapter but with such insignificant and miserable shifts that you will easily see that they indeavour that which they cannot possibly do 2. And that it was as manifestly against the practice of the Church of God Jewish and Christian in all Ages is as manifest and by sober and ingenuous persons of the Roman Communion confess'd Now do you consider how pernicious this must needs be to the People to deprive them of that great comfort and edification which they might and ought to have had by the publick Service of God in a Language by them understood especially seeing Cardinal Contarenus and Cajetan convinced of this truth confess in the places now cited that if the Sacred Offices and publick Prayers were in a known Tongue it would tend much more to the Edification and benefit of the People reason 3 Thirdly While we were in the Communion of the Church of Rome the one half of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was taken from us therefore we had good reason to separate from their Communion The Cup in the Eucharist was taken from the Laity and all Priests too save him who did Consecrate and this is most unjust and illegal 1.
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