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.
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
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
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
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
to the Jews at Berea they had and daily search'd the Scriptures whether those things which Paul preach'd were so The Apostle commends them for it and shews them the great benefit and blessing they gain'd by doing it They daily searched the Scriptures Therefore says he Many of them believed Their having and reading the Scriptures the Old Testament in their vulgar Tongue was a happy and powerful cause and means of their Believing the Gospel which S. Paul preach'd 4. S. John assures us that the Gospel was by him writ to that very end That we might believe and have eternal Life The Reading and Knowing of the Scriptures was the means God himself had appointed to bring us to true Faith and Salvation and therefore to forbid all reading or hearing the Scriptures in a vulgar and to the People intelligible Language is to contradict God and his Apostles and to deprive men of the great and effectual means of their Salvation 5. S. Peter writing to the dispersed Jews who by God's appointment had and read the Scriptures in their vulgar Tongue he admonisheth and requires them That as new-born babes they should desire the sincere milk of the word that they might grow thereby As the Mothers milk is a wholesom nourishment for young Children to preserve and promote a temporal life so in S. Peter's Judgment the Scriptures are a wholesom nourishment for young Christians to preserve and promote a Spiritual Life and therefore he exhorts them to desire the sincere milk of the word that they may grow thereby And farther as to take away Milk from new-born Children were evidently injust in it self and pernicious to the Children so to take away the Scriptures from young Children in Christ would be equally or rather more impious in him who should take them away and more pernicious to them from whom they are taken Because taking away the Mothers milk from Infants and young Children is only prejudicial to the Body and a temporal Life but to take away the Scriptures from young or any Christians is prejudicial to their Souls and Salvation 6. But altho' S. Peter exhorts the Jews to desire the sincere milk of the Word that is to read and understand it for the benefit of their Souls for he well knew that they had the Scriptures given by God himself in their vulgar Tongue and that there was none then who would hinder them to read them And tho' our Blessed Saviour commanded the Jews to search the Scriptures to bring them to the knowledge and belief that he was the true Messiah and so to eternal Life And altho' S. Paul commands the Colossians that his Epistle to them be read to the Brethren in Laodicea and that the Epistle from Laodicea be read to the Colossians Now tho' those Epistles were writ in Greek a vulgar and well known language to the Colossians and Laodiceans yet S. Paul commands that they be publickly read in both Churches But let Peter and Paul and our Blessed Saviour himself say what he will for diligently reading and searching the Scriptures in any vulgar and to the people known Tongue his pretended Vicar in contradiction to our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles does absolutely condemn all such Reading of Scripture as dangerous and to the people pernicious Lastly you may if you think it convenient and have an opportunity propose this case to your Popish Emissary who ever he be that endeavours to seduce your Parishioners from truth and the Church of England Suppose Sempronius a great and very rich man make his last Will and Testament and divide his estate amongst his Children and give many considerable Legacies to his Friends and Servants and in his Will particularly expresses what and to whom and upon what conditions his Legacies are bequeath'd now Sempronius dyes and some great man has got his Will into his hand and keeping and it being a Will in a Language not understood by the Legatees will neither let them have the Will nor a true and attested copy of it in a Language they understand So that they cannot be assur'd nor any way certainly know either who are by the Will Legatees or what the Legacies are or upon what conditions they are given save only as he who keeps the Will shall be pleased to signifie to them who if he be not an honest man may cheat and cousin them and they have no remedy to secure their right especially if he who keeps the Will be or pretend to be a supream Power from whom lyes no appeal to any superiour Judge who might examine the cause and do them justice In this case 't is most evident that he who keeps the Will is unjust in himself and injurious to the Legatees in keeping them from the knowledge of the Testators Will and so from the knowledg of what he has given them This being granted as of necessity it ought and must you may desire him as a like case to consider 1. That our Blessed Saviour even as Man and our Mediator was very great the Prince of Peace and head of his Church 2. That he liv'd and dy'd for his Church and in his Will left exceeding great Legacies to his Saints and Servants with the conditions he required of the Legatees to make them capable of those Legacies 3. That the Gospel was his last Will and Testament in which who are Legatees and upon what conditions their Legacies become due are particularly express'd 4. His Will was writ in a Language the People do not now understand and the Bishop of Rome having got it into his hand and pretending that he as Vicar of Christ is the sole Supream keeper of it does absolutely deny the People any copy of it in any vulgar Language by them understood and so deprives them of the knowledge of their Blessed Saviour's Will and Testament of the gracious Promises and great Legacies given in it and of the holy Precepts and conditions required of the People to give them a right to those Legacies So that in contradiction to our Blessed Saviour's express command they must neither search or read or have the Gospel in any vulgar Tongue by them understood upon pain of Excommunication They are not permitted to read the Gospel nor must they trust to their own eyes and understanding tho' given them by God for that purpose but they must believe the Church and the Pope or rather an ordinary Priest from him must tell them what Legacies are given and what Duties are requir'd by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel Now in the former case if the keeping Sempronius his Will from the Legatees was evidently unjust and injurious to the Legatees much more will the detaining our Blessed Saviour's Will from his People the Salvation of whose Souls are so highly concern'd in it be unjust in the Pope and his party and not only injurious but pernicious to the People For in Sempronius his Will the Legacies were only
defended in their Colledge of Clermont Decem. 12. 1662. Thes. 19 20. (h) See the Declaration of the French Clergy Mar. 23. 1662. Art. 4. (i) Vid. Concil Basil. apud Pet. Crab. Tom. 3. p. 146. col 1. 148. col 1. â— The Pope not Infallible Vid. Nic. Lyranum in Matth. 16. Jo. Launoium Epist. part 8. Ep. 13. pag. 387. alibi passim * In the Declaration of the French Clergy Mar. 23. 1662. before cited ‖ Nonnulli summi Pontifices in Hareses Errores lapsi leguntur P. Crab. Concil Tom. 3. p. 146. col 1. * Sape contingit contingere potest Papam errare Ib. p. 148. col 1. ‖ Notorium Schismaticum incorrigibilem pertinacem Haereticum à fide devium Concil Constant. Sess. 14. * In his Book de Vigilio Dormitante ‖ Synodus 6. in Trullo Act. 4. Act. 13. the words in the Council are Anathema Honorio c. He being a Monothelite and for that Heresie condemn'd * Vid. Ed. Ricberium in Historia Concil Generalium cap. 10. per totâ—m praecipue Num 15 c. Num. 25. Vbi objectionibus Bellarmini Baronii respondet * Extat apud Jov rium Conc. part 1. p. 84 col 4. in sine Synodi 6. In editione Conciliorum Romana Surianae ‖ In festo Leonie Papae Junii 28. Lection 3. Sanctus Leo probavit Acta 6. Synodi Ergo damnationem Honorii baeretici * Brev. Rom. ex Decreto Concilii Trident. restitutum à Pio 5. editum à Clemente 8. Vrbano 8 recognitum Antwerp 1660. ‖ Pradicamus quemadmodum sexta Synodus definivis detestamurque cum ea Sergium Honorium c. impios istos Pietatis impugnatores Anathematizamus Synodus Nicena 2. apud Joverium de Conciliis part 1. pag. 106. * Conc. Const. in forma professionis fidei à Papa facienda sess 39. Ego N. juro me credere tenerefidem cath Sanctorum 8. Conc. Niceni Constant. c. quinti sexti c. illam fidem usque ad unum apicem immutilatam servare Decretum hoc de Professione fidei à Papa facienda condium est Anno 1417. 2. A General Council not Infallible * Acts 15.28 * Acts 15.28 * Deus ad Ecclesiae suae directionem Sanctis Patribus inspirare dignatus est c. Ita Pius 4. in Bulla super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei in Concil Trident. Ed. Antw. 1633. p. 450. and elsewhere Synodus à Deo edocta statuit c. Vid. Conc. Trident sess 13. de eucharistia in decreto p. 121 122. dictae editionis sess 21. de Communione cap. 1. p. 203. * Luke 2.1 ‖ This is confess'd learnedly proved by a Roman Catholick and Sorbon Doctor Edmund Richerius in Hist. Conc. Gen. Ed. Coloniae 1680. cap. 1. Sect. 7. p. 6. And what he says there he afterwards particularly proves * Vid Bellarm. de Concil c. lib. 1. cap. 6 7. ‖ Vid. Longum à Coriolano in compendio Conciliorum Rom. 1624. p. 290 291. They will not approve it because it condemn'd and depos'd 2 Popes as Schismaticks and Hereticks and they dare not condemn it because it made Alexander the 5 th Pope whom they reckon in the Series of their true Popes which he could not be if that Council had not a just power to make him so * In their Declaration of March 23. 1662. * Sacramentum tribusperficitur Materia Forma Intentione Ministri Quorum si aliquod desit non perficitur Sacramentum Apud Binium Concil Tom. 8. p. 865. col 1. Ded. Paris 1636. ‖ Vid. D. Crakanthorp contr Spalateus cap. 72. p. 530 531. Christoph. à capite Fontium de neces correct Theol. Scholasticae p. 51.56 * Concil Trident. Sess. 7. de Sacramentis can 11. ‖ Rituale Rom. Antw. 1652. p. 6. Missale Romanum Antw. 1619. in principio de defectibus circa Missam 7. * Si in Eucharistia Verum Corpus Christi noncontineatur Adoratio ejus talis erit Idololatria qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam audita erat Tolerabilior enim erit eorum error qui pro Deo colunt statuam auream vel pannum rubrum in hasta elevatum quod de Lappis narratur c. Ita Costerus in Enchiridio controversiarum Colon. Agrip. 1587. cap. 8. pag. 301. * Luke 24.48 Act. 1.8.22 ‖ Luk. 24.39 Joh. 20.27 * Mar. 16.14 ‖ Act. 1.3 * 1 John 1.1 * Rom. 10.17 * 1 Cor. 1.10 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the mind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the will for the word does properly and usually signifie the will and so some Learned Papists render the words In eadem sententia eadem voluntate So Hen. Holden a Sorbon Dr. on this place 1 Cor. 1.10 in his Notes * Vid Rev 18.4 ‖ Sine Schismate decedere possumus ab iis qui à veritate deviant vid. Joverium de Conc. part 1. p. 203. col 2. * 1. Reason From their vilifying and prohibiting the Scripture in any vulgar tongue ‖ Vid. Fighium controver 3 de Ecclesia p. 71. col 2. ed. 1542. And there his impious Blaspheming of the Holy Scriptures * Vid. Indicem Librorum prohibitorum ex Cone Trident. praescript c. ibi Regul 4. Si Sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur plus inde ob hominum temeritatem Detrimenti quam Vtilitatis oriri ‖ The Authors and their words and Books where they are to be found are punctually and truly quoted to my hand by D. Crakanthorp cont Archiep. Spalat c. 13. S. 13. p 61. vid. Azor Inst. moral Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. p. 83. * vid. Regulam 4. Indicis dicti supra citatam observationem ad dictam Regulam Bullam Clem. 8. datam Tusc. 17. Oct. 1595. ‖ V. Bull. Greg. 15. dat Rom. dec 30. A. 1622. * Libros quomodolibet prohibitos So the title of that Bull and the Bull it self * Rom 15.4 1. The Jewish Church ‖ Mal. 4.4 * Deut. 31.11 ‖ vers 12.13 * Neb. 8.2 3. ‖ Act. 13.15.27 * Rom. 3.1 ◠‖ Psal. 1.1 2. Joshua 1.8 See that signal place to this purpose Hosea 8.12 condemning their neglect of reading Scriptures which God gave them for that end that they should read and consider them 2. The Christian Church * Vid. Brerewood's Inquiries cap. 26. p. 190 191. c. ed. Lond. 1633. ‖ 2 Tim. 3.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 statim ab Infantia * James 1.21 * Acts. 7.11 12. ‖ vers 12. * Joh. 20.31 ‖ 1 Pet. 2.2 Vide Occumenium Pareum Estium Gagnaeium in Locum * Joh. 5.39 Joh. 10.25 26 28. ‖ Col. 4.16 The Epist. to the Coloss was writ An. Christ. 60. * The 1. Epist. to Timothy was writ from Laodicea A. Chr. 52. Vide subscriptionem 1. Ep. ad Timoth. * Matth. 28.18 Phil. 2.8 9 10. * See that signal Bull of Pope Clement the 9th dated at