THE Design of this Ad­dress is not by any means to insult over you; in the Circumstances under which it has pleased God in his Providence to bring you; or to raise popular Odium against you. No, however necessary I may judge [Page 2] that which has lately been done, yet I cannot but have a great com­passion for any thing that looks like Suffering for Conscience sake. And this, I think, I owe not on­ly to the Principles of Humane Nature, which require that we should have a tenderness and pity for those that are in Affliction; but to the Principles of my Reli­gion, as a Christian and a Member of the Church of England. I have always looked upon it as one of the Glories of the Protestant Reli­gion, that it gives the dominion over Mens Consciences to God on­ly; that it asserts the natural Li­berty of Mankind to judge for themselves what it is that God ex­pects from them; that it makes very charitable Allowances for the Ignorance and Mistakes of Men when joined with Sincerity and a true Love of God; and that in [Page 3] consequence of these things it does not incline it's Members to a severe inquisition into the private Opini­ons of Men, or to be hard upon them upon that account. And on the other side, that it has been a great aggravation of the Errors of the Church of Rome, that the Be­lief of them has been so rigidly exacted, under no less pain than Damnation in the other World, and the being Burnt, or at least Ʋndone in this, whenever it has been in their power to effect it.

But you will say perhaps, That if the Opinion of Protestants be so much against Persecution, how comes it to pass that there have been so many severe Laws from time to time made against you; especially this last, which deprives your Chil­dren of their Inheritance, if they will not renounce their Religion; [Page 4] and deprives you of the comfort and assistance of your Spiritual Fa­thers by forbidding them to Exer­cise any Office of their Function under pain of lying in a Goal all their Lives if they are caught?

Now in answer to this, I would not aggravate Matters to make you odious; but as plainly, and as ten­derly as I can, lay the Reasons be­fore you which, we may suppose, the Nation went upon in making these Laws, in some hopes to alle­viate that Exasperation which your present Sufferings may cause, and which may very likely make you throw away, without consider­ing, all that a Protestant can say for your Conviction.

Why those of the Roman Communion have not reason to expect the same Toleration with other Dissenters. And First, I desire [Page 5] you would consider that there must be some peculiar Reason of this dealing with you under a Prince, and in a Nation so much inclined to Liberty of Consci­ence in almost every Body else. We have indeed, a very ill O­pinion of your Errors, and the danger of them to the Souls of Men; and of the dishonour brought to God by giving to Creatures the Worship due only to him. But besides these, there are some things peculiar in your Religion which give Protestants just grounds of Jealousie, and make your Case very different from that of other Parties who dissent from the National Establish­ment.

The first is this, That you own a Dependence upon a Foreign Power, and a Power which is a [Page 6] declared Enemy to all Protestants. You own for the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and the Head of your Church, a Person who pretends to a Power to Depose Princes, and to give away their Dominions to such of your Church as are able to get them; and who in fact has very frequently Exercised this Power, and by it caused great Bloodshed and Disturbances in the World. Particularly, he has by Name Excom­municated Two of our own Prin­ces, Henry VIII. and Queen Eliza­beth; and has forbid all their Sub­jects to obey, or assist them, and has given away their Country to any Invader that would come and take it. And he does the same in effect, every Year in the famous The form of all these Bulls may be seen in Bullar. Roman. Bulla Coenae by our King and Go­vernment at present.

You cannot wonder if Prote­stants are desirous at least to dis­arm all those who own this Man for the Vicar of Jesus Christ. And this in fact was the Cause of most of those severe Laws which have been made against you. In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days the Papists gene­rally lived as easie and quiet as o­ther Subjects; but when the Pope Excommunicated the Queen, and Priests were sent from the Semi­naries abroad to alienate the Hearts of Her Subjects, and Conspiracies were entred into against her; then were those severe Laws made as against those that were Enemies to the State.

It is very well known how ma­ny Conspiracies followed that Ex­communication through the whole [Page 8] course of her Reign, and what danger the Nation was in from the Spanish Invasion, which was undertaken upon the instigation of Romish Priests, and upon the Title which the Pope gave the King of Spain to the Kingdom of England.

But I shall not insist upon these things, or the many Provoca­tions we have had ever since to this day; or the great danger we may be in at present; so far I be­lieve must appear reasonable to all indifferent Persons, that it is fit for us to make all those who expect to enjoy the Privileges of other Sub­jects to renounce an Authority so dangerous to us.

It may, perhaps, be said that there are some among you who do not own the Pope to have such Autho­rity, [Page 9] and that therefore we may safely deal more gently with them.

As to this, I shall not insist at present to shew how far this Pow­er of the Popes to Excommunicate and deprive Heretical Princes and States is a Doctrine of the Church of Rome; this is certain, that it has been long pretended to by the Head of that Church; and those who do not approve of it ought to speak out, and to renounce Communion with him as a Tyrant and an Usurper, and a Heretick by pretending such Power from Jesus Christ which was never giv­en him: But so long as they stick by him, and own him for the Head of their Church, and the Vi­car of Jesus Christ, for the Judge of Controversies, and the Supreme director of their Consciences, they must not wonder if Protestants can [Page 10] have no Confidence in them; es­pecially if we consider how many Methods of Deceit have been taught and recommended by those among them, who have been, and are still the great Guides of Con­sciences.

The 2d Consideration I would propose is this, That Protestants have a Right by the Principle of Self-Preservation to take such Me­thods with those of the Roman Communion, as may put it out of their power to do them a mischief; Vid. Concil. Lat. Can. 3. de Haereticis, which is called a Ge­neral council by that of Constans Sess. 19. and by that or Trent. Sess. 24. because Papists are obliged by the Laws of their Religion to persecute Protestants; and these are Laws that have been as much put in Execution when e­ver it has been in their power, [Page 11] and it could be done with safety, as any Laws they have.

It would be thought too in­vidious to reckon up all the Wars and Massacres, Burnings and Crulties of all sorts that have been and are still in the World upon this account; especially what has been done in a manner under our view in a Neighbour Country, the sad effects of which not only our selves but all the Protestant Coun­tries in Europe see and feel, by those vast Numbers of poor Creatures that flock to us to preserve their Consciences and beg their Bread: Only thus far we cannot forbear to take Notice, that there have been more hard things suffered for not submitting to the Pope than ever were inflicted upon Christians for their Religion by all the Heathen Persecutors together.

Were these things the effects only of suddain Passion, or Facti­ons of State, which often do hard things to one another; there might be however some hope left that it might be otherwise, should we ever again come into their power: But when Men are cruel upon a steddy settled Principle of Perse­cution, there is nothing left but to guard our selves against them as well as we can. Not that we may lawfully do hard things to them because they have done so to us, or our Brethren; for that would be Revenge, or at best the imita­ting a very bad Example: But eve­ry Man has by nature a Right to defend himself, and if that makes it wise or necessary for him to do some things which otherwise he has no Inclination to, it is not his fault, but the fault of those who bring that necessity upon him.

We are convinced that if Popery should prevail in England, we should not long enjoy our Estates, or perhaps Lives, if we would not comply with it; and we are sensi­ble, that more than once we have been in great danger of this; ef­pecially lately, when it was almost a Miracle that we were saved from it. We are sensible also that they are a restless uneasie Party; that they have mighty dependencies a­broad which have much prevailed of late; that we can't tell what Foreign Power may be invited o­ver, or in succeeding times what incouragement they may have at home; and therefore we do con­ceive that meerly in our own de­fence we may justly take as effectu­al measures as we can to keep their Priests from among them, who we are satisfied have been and are [Page 14] like to be Incendiaries; and to di­vert their Estates into better Hands of their own Relations, that they may not be turned against us. To conclude this matter; notwith­standing these Reasons, we have to guard our selves against Popery, yet there are here no Cruelties of an Inquisition, no Burning, no ta­king away of Life, no Dragooning; nay, the greatest part, the Traders, and those of the poorer sort are scarce touched in this Act; and as for others on whom it is hardest, those of Estates, yet there is no­thing done of a sudden and irre­mediable; there's Time allowed for Consideration, and Place left for Repentance and better Thoughts; and in the mean time their Persons are secure, and they are at Liber­ty to go into any other Country with all the Money and Goods they can get, without danger of [Page 15] being sent to the Gallies, if they are caught; which are Privi­leges a great many poor Crea­tures we have lately heard of would take to be very great Mer­cies.

Reasons to persuade those of the Church of Rome to ex­amine the grounds of their Religion. As far as a private Man may venture to give his Opinion of the Actions of his Su­periors, these I sup­pose (joyned with some peculiar Insolencies at this time, very well known in the Kingdom) were the chief Reasons the King and Parlia­ment went upon in making this and former Laws against you; and if our Religion be true and yours false, I believe you your selves will hardly condemn us for it. And this is the next thing I would desire you to consider of; that you would not take it for granted, [Page 16] that you are in the right, and so call this Persecution for Conscience sake, but that you would take this Opportunity to examin the grounds of your Religion; which will be an advantage to you which way so ever the matter end.

If upon Examination you find your selves to have been in the wrong, you will then have the Benefit and Comfort of being con­verted from very dangerous Errors and Practices, and of living quiet­ly, and preserving your Estates to your Families; but if otherwise, you find reason for your present Opinions, it will be a mighty com­fort to you in whatever you suffer, that you do it upon evidence and conviction of Conscience; and not upon Fancy and Prejudice from your Education.

And so much, I think, in Justice you owe to your Children, not to Breed them up in a Religion which must deprive them of their Estates, till you have well examined the Truth of it your selves: It will in­deed be the greatest Blessing to them to Breed them up in the true Re­ligion let the consequences as to this World be what they will; but at least, Matters ought to be well weighed before you do what will be on all accounts so great an Inju­ry to them, if your Religion should prove false, which perhaps, I may give you just reason to sus­pect before I conclude this Paper, if you will but read it without pre­judice and partiality. Only one thing I would desire you to have a care of, that you be not too nice­ly sensible of the dishonour of changing your Opinion, now it [Page 18] may seem to be for your Interest. This I know is a Consideration apt to work very strong, and to give a greater Biass to the Minds of some Persons than the greatest Interest in the World. But a good Christian should be contented with the Apo­stle to go through evil report and good report, and should despise the Cen­sure of the World, so he can but please God and save his Soul.

And this suggests another Consi­deration, that not only your Inte­rest in this World, but your Souls are very much concerned in this Examination. Your Church is ac­cused by Protestants as guilty of a great number of dangerous Errors, and of very sinful Practices; of Superstition and Idolatry, of being the Authors, and consequently having the guilt of a great Schism in the Church; and it concerns you [Page 19] to consider whether this Charge be true, or no? Whatever Charity Protestants may have for those a­mong you, who have no means of being better Informed, they have just reason to look upon such Er­rors and sinful Practices as like to be fatal to those among you who might be better informed and will not.

But there is another Considera­tion, which perhaps may weigh more with you in this Matter than the Opinion of Protestants; which is, That if this Charge against you be true; if you are guilty of Schism and Idolatry, and such gross Er­rors, by the Opinion of your own Divines, you cannot be Saved. This is a Matter that they them­selves often urge against that Cha­rity which Protestants are apt to have for sincere honest People a­mong [Page 20] you that are invincibly Ig­norant; besides, the very same Rea­sons which they urge to shew the danger that we are in, do equally hold against you, supposing that you are in the wrong. If it be He­resy in us to deny the Articles of your new Creed, supposing they are true, it must be Heresy in you to believe them, supposing they are false; the Reason is the same in both; and so as to the Schism, if your pretended Head of the Church be guilty of Tyranny, and Usurpation, and Heresy and I­dolatry, and of imposing these upon Christians, it is He and his Follow­ers are in the Schism, and not We. And then, all those dreadful things which your own Writers say a­gainst Schism and Heresy, do as much belong to you, supposing you are in the wrong; as they do to us if we are so. And therefore [Page 21] if what they say, have any weight with you, it ought to make you consider seriously whether you are in the right, or no.

I the rather urge this, because it contains a full Answer to that piece of Sophistry wherewith you often deceive your selves, and en­deavour to delude us; That you are safe by the confession of all Sides, but we are not, and that therefore we ought in prudence to come over unto you. Which is false; for by your own Opinion you are not safe, but in a Damnable Condition, supposing that you are in the wrong: There is no difference at all betwixt us and you in this Matter, except on­ly where the Truth lies. For if our charitable Opinion of the Mer­cy of God to invincible Ignorance be true, this is Comfort to us, sup­posing we are mistaken, as it is [Page 22] to you supposing you are so; and on the other side, if your Damning Doctrine be true, this is as dange­rous to you as it is to us.

It lies therefore upon you even from the Opinion of your own Di­vines to be very impartial in exa­mining the Grounds of your Re­ligion; tho' indeed our Obligation to search after Truth does not arise chiefly from the danger of being mistaken, but from that desire that every good Man should have to please God, and to serve him as well as he can; and the want of this desire has more danger and malignity in it than a great many mistakes in Matters of meer Belief. To be only concerned to avoid those Errors that may Damn us, is the same undutiful Temper toward God, as it would be in a Son to have no concern to please his Fa­ther, [Page 23] but only so far as that he may not be dis-inherited. Many Errors that may not be fatal to Ignorant People, may yet be very dishonou­rable to God, bring a great Scandal to our Holy Religion, and do a great deal of mischief in the World; and these are things which a good Christian would have a great care of, tho' at the same time he might hope that God would pardon him, should he ignorantly fall into them.

This, I hope, may be sufficient to convince you, that you ought to examine well the Grounds you go upon in your Religion. I shall now endeavour to shew you some of the Errors which we charge up­on your Church, and the Reasons why we Renounced them, and why we think it your Duty to do so too.

As to the particulars, I shall chief­ly confine my self to those which the present Act mentions, those to be renounced in the Test, and in the Oath of Supremacy.

But before I proceed to them, I would speak a little to that which is the great ground and support of all your other Errors, the Infalli­bility of your Church; which if I can shew you to be a meer pretence without any Warrant or Authori­ty from Jesus Christ, you will then more easily hearken to what can be said in the other Matters.

It cannot be expected that I should handle these Controversies in their full extent in the short compass which it's fit this present Address should have; but if you find what is said here to have [Page 25] weight in it, and that it gives you just cause of doubting, I hope you will be so kind to your selves as to come to some of our Divines who may inform you more fully, or to read some of those Books which have at large examined these Mat­ters.

About the Infalibility of the Church of Rome. Infallibility is the thing in the World which a good Christian should have the least prejudice a­gainst; for tho' I do now be­lieve, since I see plainly that God has appointed no Infalliable Judge, that it is best all things considered that there should be none: Yet I must confess, were I to judge of things by my own Reason with­out any regard to what God has done, I should be apt to think such a Judge would be a great Bles­sing [Page 26] to the World. I could not but be very glad to find an Infalli­ble way to end Disputes among Christians; but Christianity has now been in the World near 1700 Years, and I do not know any Age in which there have not been great Contests and Disputes, except some few that were so stupidly Ignorant that Men hardly knew any thing of Religion, and then no wonder if there were not many Disputes; from whence, I cannot but con­clude, that either it is the Will of God for wise Reasons, that Con­troversies should not be ended; or that an Infallible Judge cannot end them, or that there has all this while been no Infallible Judge.

But to consider this Matter more methodically; I have these Two, I think, strong Reasons, which make me conclude, there is no such Judge.

• I. That you your selves are not agreed who he is. And
• II. That the Reasons commonly brought to prove that there is, or ought to be such a one, do, if well weighed, rather prove against it.

1. That you your selves are not agreed who he is, and this is a mighty prejudice in a thing of this Consequence; certainly that which it appointed by God to end all Controversies, ought to be a thing out of Controversy it self. There ought to be a plain Com­mission, a plain Designation of the Person, or Persons, that Christians might know where to repair in their Difficulties. But is this Mat­ter plain? Can you assign us any Man, or number of Men, that have, I won't say such a Commission, [Page 28] but that in fact only have ever since the Apostles Days been repair­ed to by Christians, and looked upon as their Judge, and their De­terminations thought to be Infalli­ble? If you can, I for my part shall very thankfully submit, and own the Authority. But let us see what the People of your own Church say about it. You are sure that you have Infallibility, but you don't know where it is. Some say it is in the Pope, as Head of the Church, and Vicar of Jesus Christ; others say, it is in a General Coun­cil, but these differs. Some say, they are Infallible if Confirmed by the Pope; others, that their Determi­nations do not need his Confirma­tion. But besides these, there are others that say it is (they don't know how) in the diffusive Body of the Church.

Now pray Gentlemen, does this sound like the Voice of Truth, or a Method appointed by God to end all Controversies? In Matters of smaller moment we allow Men to abound in their own Sense, and to differ from one another; at least we cannot conclude they are all in the wrong because they differ; but in this we may, and ought, be­cause if there were any such thing as Infallibility in the Church, and that designed to be the Guide of all Christians, it could not be a Se­cret, or matter of Controversie where it was lodged; we should see the plain Appointment of God, or at least we should see in the His­tory of the Church to whom Chri­stians had appeal'd in all Ages. And for the Christian Church to be at uncertainty where to go for so long a time to end their Disputes; is the same sort of Absurdity that it [Page 30] would be in a Nation for 1700 Years together not to know where to go for Justice.

But this Absurdity will appear the greater if we consider besides this, that tho' the Church of Rome be united together in a strong Bond of External Government and Polity, yet in truth and reality this Diffe­rence about the Guide of their Faith makes them different Churches and of different Religions. For a dif­ferent Guide and Judge, if he be e­steem'd Infallible, must make a dif­ferent Rule of Faith; because his Determinations must be part of the Rule of Faith; and a different Rule of Faith must make a diffe­rent Religion. To instance in par­ticular, those that own General Councils to be Infallible, must take their Decrees as part of the Rule of their Faith; but now they that [Page 31] own the Pope for Infallible, must besides, take in all his solemn Determinations, and so have a much larger Rule of their Faith than the other, and in ma­ny Cases, very different, and what may be much more different than it is now; for if he be indeed Fal­lible, as many of them say that he is, he may determine Vice to be Vertue, and Vertue to be Vice, he may fall into great Errors, as other Fallible Men may do, and as some of them in fact have done; and yet those of that Church who own him to be Infallible, must take these things as part of the Rule of their Faith, and Manners.

These I take to be undeniable Consequences from the differ­ences among them about their In­fallible Judge; and I think, from all together, I may well inferr, that [Page 32] there is no such thing; since it so much concerns the World, if there be any, to be at a certainty about it; and yet the greatest part of Christians know nothing at all of the Matter; and those who do pretend to know it are, in truth, as much at a loss about it as those that do not; only they agree in a Name, which leads them different ways, perhaps all wrong, and only more Infallibly secures them in Error.

But I would now speak a word or two to the several Pretences to it. The first Pretender is the Pope, who seems indeed to have the best Pretence; for if God do think sit to appoint such a one, a single Person who is always ready to hear and determine Matters, seems most proper, at least much more proper than a number of Men to be sent from all Parts of [Page 33] the World, who can seldom meet, and never without a great deal of trouble; and this seems to be the most genuine Doctrine of the Church of Rome; which makes the Pope the Center of Ʋnity, makes Communion with him ne­cessary, and a Mark of a True Church, and makes his Church the Mother and Mistress of all Chur­ches; which is hardly Sense with­out Infallibility, But as to his Pre­tence, I shall consider it presently, when I come to examine his Supre­macy, for if that fall, his Infalli­bility must fall along with it. One thing only I would observe here, That it seems apparent from hence that the Primitive Church knew nothing of his Infallibility, in that they took to that troublesome and chargeable and tedious way of end­ing their Disputes by Councils; which, supposing he be appointed [Page 34] by God to determine them, and in­abled to do it infallibly, were not only useless and impertinent, but indeed dangerous, and very apt to turn Men from the way by which God had appointed the Church to be Guided. A number of Men may be good for Counsel and As­sistance of one that is Fallible, but must be utterly unnecessary and an incumbrance to one that is In­fallible. And therefore since the Church has always made use of Coun­cils either General or Provincial, to determine Matters of Faith, I may certainly conclude they knew nothing of his Infallibility.

Infallibili­ty of General Councils. As to General Councils, it is not our present Business to en­quire of what use they may be to the Church, or what Ex­ternal deference is due to them if [Page 35] we could have those that are truly General; but whether they are In­fallible or not? Now as to this, I would only propose this one short Consideration.

That they are not of the ap­pointment of Jesus Christ, but be­gun 300 Years after Christ by Con­stantine; now whatever Wisdom there may have been in calling so many Bishops together to endea­vour by their Authority to Com­pose the Differences of the Church, or to Establish good Discipline, yet it was still a Humane Constitu­tion, and I know no way to annex Infallibility to what is so. If 3 or 400 Men meet together, each of which is confessedly Fallible, they must altogether be so, unless you can shew a Promise from Jesus Christ to secure them from Error: Now if there be such a Promise as [Page 36] this, we Protestants expect to find it in Scripture; but however, you your selves cannot pretend to it unless it be in Scripture, or comes down to you by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles. As to Scripture the very Name and Thing of a Gene­ral Council is quite unknown to it; and as for Tradition, that could as little convey down any such Pro­mise, for the whole Thing was un­known in the Church for 300 Years, not so much as the Name ever heard of.

As for the Meeting at Jerusalem, of which we have an account in the 15 of the Acts of the Apo­stles, it was only a Meeting of those that were then at Jerusalem upon occasion of a Complaint that was brought to them; And it was a Meeting of Men, most of which were by immediate Inspiration singly Infallible; and therefore [Page 37] can be no President for a Meet­ing of Bishops from all Parts of the World: And much less does this which was an accidental Meeting, contein an Institution for the future, and a Promise to make them Infal­lible when met in a Body together, who singly are but like other Men.

If it be said, that they must be Infallible because they represent the Ʋniversal Church which is Infallible; the Difficulty will still return; for tho' we should grant the Church to be Infallible, yet who appointed this Repre­sentations? did Jesus Christ? Has he annexed a Promise of Infallibility to it? Without such a Promise as this, there may be Infallibility in the Church, and yet 3 or 400 Bishops, or the Majority of them may be mistaken, they may be a Number [Page 38] of Men packed together to serve a Turn, they may be guided by Fa­ction or Interest, by their own In­terest, or the Interest of those who send them, as in fact it has been more than once; or if they are good Men, that will not make them Infallible. We may contrive as wisely as we please, but we can never be certain to annex the Su­pernatural Assistance of God to our own Schemes.

To conclude this Head, If the In­fallibility you boast of be fixed in General Councils, there was none in the Church for 300 Years, when yet there was the most need of them, there having been a greater number of dangerous Heresies in that Time, than have been in the Church ever since. But what is worse, either there was no true Faith and Religion all that while, [Page 39] or else it must be granted, that we may have it without an Infallible Guide; Christians were then, at least in this respect, in the same Condition that Protestants are now; And I hope it will be granted, that we need not desire to be in a bet­ter than they were.

The Last refuge for Infallibility, is, that it is in the diffusive Body of the Church. But this I believe must be at last reduced to one or other of the former; for it will be very difficult to shew how the Church can exert it's Infallibility so as to be a Guide, but either by means of it's Head which you make the Pope, or else by the way of a General Council; there is no other way whereby those of your Commu­nion can be certain what is the Do­ctrine, and what are the Traditions of your Church but one of these, [Page 40] and therefore having considered both of them already, I shall proceed to consider the way of Reasoning your Divines commonly make use of to prove that there either is, or ought to be such an Infallible Judge.

As for what they say from Scrip­ture, it is commonly urged so cold­ly, and with so much diffidence, that we may see they do not lay any great stress upon it: But that you may not be amused only with some general Words in truth nothing to the purpose, I desire you would consider, that there be­ing no Infallibility which can serve to be your Guide but only that of the Pope, or a General Council, no­thing from Scripture can be perti­nent, but that which proves either the one or the other. No Man, or Number of Men can be Infallible [Page 41] without a particular Assistance, and we cannot be sure they are so with­out a particular Promise. And therefore when you hear any thing alledged from Scripture, only ask your selves What does this prove? Does it prove the Pope to be Infal­lible? Or does it prove a General Council to be so? If it do not prove one of them, it proves nothing in this Matter, for you are never the nearer your Guide for any thing else.

Now as to General Councils, I have shewed already, that there is not the least hint of them in Scrip­ture; and as for the Title of the Pope to it, I shall consider it pre­sently in examining his Supremacy: And in the mean time shall take no­tice a little what they urge from Reason to prove that there ought to be such a Judge; ought to be [Page 42] I say, for all the Reason in the World without a Revelation from God can never prove that there is one, it being a thing that de­pends meerly upon the appoin­ment and good-pleasure of God.

The Writers of the Romish Church, it must be confessed, talk Plausibly enough when they ex­pose the weakness of Human under­standing, and the Infirmities of Human Nature; and I must say that in reading of them I could hardly forbear at least to wish, that if it had pleased God, some effectual Remedy had been provided to se­cure Men from Error. But this did not at all influence me to think that God had done so, and that upon these Three Accounts.

1. Because we see in fact, that neither Mankind in general, nor [Page 43] Christians in particular have been secured from Errors; that there have been as many Contests and Differences among Christians as we can suppose there would have been, taking it for granted that they were left in the State, we say they were, without any Infallible Guide to direct them; and therefore whatever force such a Considerati­on from the necessity of ending Controversies might have had in the first Times of our Religion; the matter of Fact does now in a great measure take it off; because in 1700 Years the Church has not been freed from them. From whence, as I said before, we may inferr, either that it is not the Will of God that Controversies should be ended, or that an Infal­lible Judge will not end them, or that there is no Infallible Judge; either of which, takes away the force of this Argument.

2. Because this whole way of Arguing from the weakness of our Understanding, and proness to Error, and the like, proves no­thing in particular, and conse­quently does not bring us at all nearer Satisfaction than we were before. The most natural Infe­rence from it is, That every Man is to be of the Religion of his Coun­try; for that makes through work, and excuses us from using our Fal­lible Reason at all in the Matter; whereas in your Way, however you may cry out of the uncertainty of our own Reason, yet you must use it in a great many material Points, and indeed, found all the certainty you have upon it; you must for instance, Judge by your own Reason, whether the Christi­an Religion be true, or not; whe­ther among all the Professors of [Page 45] Christianity, yours be the True Church; whether there be any In­fallible Judge or no, and who he is, and what his Determinations are. These are things of great weight, and of a great latitude, and indeed take in the chief Points of Religion, and yet these things must be judged of by that Reason which God has given every Man, or they cannot be judged of at all; whereas your whole way of Argu­ing from the fallibility of our Understanding, either proves that we cannot judge with certainty of these Matters, or it proves no­thing.

3. This whole way of talking is to me a strong prejudice against what you would prove by it. For if you had a plain Institution or a Promise of such a Judg to shew, there would be no need of this Ar­guing, [Page 46] that would be Sufficient; and without that, no Man can be Infallible; and we may be sure that Men have no such Commission or Promise to shew, when they are forced to use so much Cavilling and Dispute about the matter, which is indeed nothing to the purpose without the other.

We do with much more reason inferr, that since God has not thought fit to give any such Com­mission, that therefore we must make the best of those other means which he is pleased to allow us; to search the Scriptures, and endeavour to understand them as well as we can. And this is the Method that our Saviour directed, Search the Scrip­tures, for in them ye think ye have E­ternal Life, and they testifie of me. From which Words, we may plain­ly infer these following things.

1. That the Jews had at that time no Infallible Guide in Matters of Religion; for if they had our Saviour would have directed them thither, but we see he directs them to the Scripture.

2. We may inferr that the Per­sons our Saviour spoke to, had without an Infallible Guide suffici­ent Abilities to understand the Scriptures, and to have true Faith; otherwise we may be sure he would not have sent them thither, and if they could understand the Old Te­stament without such a Guide, much more may Christians under­stand the New which is much easier.

3. We may inferr that Private Persons, (for such our Saviour spoke to,) may have sufficient as­surance [Page 48] of Divine Truths from ex­amining the Scriptures, tho' they go against the Governors of the Church; for our Saviour tells them, that they might find in the Scriptures, that he was the True Messias, tho' the Chief Priests did at that time reject him, and were afterwards the Authors of his Cru­cifixion: All which do absolutely overthrow the necessity of an In­fallible Judge in order to True Faith. And there cannot be one thing said against Protestants examining the Scriptures now; but what would have held as well, against the Command of our Saviour here to the Jews; unless they can shew us a positive Institution of an Infalli­ble Guide; but all the Arguments from Reason, and the imperfecti­on of our Understanding are per­fectly the same in both Cases.

The truth is, all our Saviour's Preaching did suppose this, for it had been a vain thing to Preach to People who had not abilities to understand: And if we go further, to the Preaching of the Apostles, we shall find that they endeavour­ed to prove the truth of what they said out of the Scriptures, by which they appealed to the Understand­ing of their Hearers, and made them proper Judges of what they said, as far as their own Salvation was concerned in it. We see in Acts 17.11. The Bereans were commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things the Apostles prea­ched were so, or not. The Apostle St. John commands Christians to try the Spirits; that is, to examine the pretences that any should make to the Spirit of God, which supposes [Page 50] that their Understanding, how fallible soever, was sufficient to judge in these Matters.

In a word, the Writers and E­missaries of the Church of Rome, do themselves, when they don't think of it, in effect confess this; for when they bring Scripture, and other Arguments to persuade us to come over to their Church, I would ask them, are we proper Judges of these things, or are we not? Will our Faith be a true Faith, that is founded upon these Scriptures, or these Reasons that you here bring? If it be so, then we may under­stand for our selves, and there is no necessity in order to true Faith, of an Infallible Judge; but if it be not so, there ought to be then an end of Disputes; for it's in vain to Dispute where it's supposed that we cannot understand or judge, and [Page 51] all offering of Scripture or Reason to prove the truth of their Opinions is only affront and mockery.

But it may be it will be said, Don't we see People differ about the Inter­pretation of Scripture? some go one way and some another, and yet all are consident of their own; how can we be sure that we are in the right any more than they who are as confident in what they say as we are?

Now this Objection is founded upon this, that we cannot have certainty of what is once Disputed; which is contrary to the Common Opinion of Mankind, who would have done Disputing, if they thought they could not be certain when once Men differed from them. This does indeed overthrow all Reason and Religion. Some have [Page 52] ventured to Dispute the Being of God, and many more the Truth of the Christian Religion, and yet I hope we may be very certain of the Truth of both these. But I would only urge at present this one Consideration. Are all the World a­greed about their Infallible Judge? If not, how can they be certain of that? But to press this Matter a little more plainly; they say for instance, that we can't from Scrip­ture be certain of the Divinity of our Saviour, because the Socinian's a small number of Men, dispute that Matter. But the same Socinians deny their Infallible Judge, and therefore that must at least be as un­certain as the other: And not on­ly the Socinians, but all Prote­stants deny it, which must make it still more uncertain; and not only all the Protestants, but the Greek, Armenian, Aethiopian Churches, a [Page 53] vast Body of Men, which must still add to the uncertainty; and not only all these, but all that in any Age or Nation have ever differed from the Church of Rome; for whoever differs from them must deny their Infallibility; and con­sequently this must have been Dis­puted not only as much as any one Point, but as much as all the rest together.

This, I think, is a demonstrative Answer to this whole way of Ar­guing, and shews the manifest Ab­surdity of it; for it makes things uncertain because they are Dispu­ted, and yet makes the most Dis­puted thing in all the World the Foundation of all the certainty they have.

I have been the longer in examin­ing this Point of the Infallibility [Page 54] of your Church, as being that which is the great support of all your other Errors.

I now proceed to speak some­thing to the particulars I promised; and first I shall begin with Transub­stantiation, which is the first thing Renounced in the Test.

The Sense of the Church of Eng­land in this Matter seems to be this, That tho' Believers in the faithful and due receiving of this Holy Sacrament are made Partakers of the Benefits of the Death of Christ, that is, of the breaking of his Body and the shedding his Blood, and so may be properly e­nough said to be partakers of his Body and Blood, yet that which they take into their Mouths is real­ly but Bread and Wine; but Bread and Wine set apart for a holy Use, [Page 55] to represent the breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour; and therefore in a Sacramental sense may be called his Body and Blood, tho' in truth and reality they are but Bread and Wine.

Both Sides do in some Sense own a real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament, but this one thing, if observed, will sufficiently shew the difference; That Protestants say, that in the devout and holy Use of this Sacrament, Christ will be pre­sent with his Grace and Assistance to the Souls of good People; but that the Things which appear before us, which we eat and drink, are not Christ, but Bread and Wine.

Those of the Church of Rome on the other side, say, That the Thing which lies before them, [Page 56] which they put into their Mouths, tho' before Consecration they are Bread and Wine, yet upon pro­nouncing those Words, This is my Body, and this is my Blood, they lose their own Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine, and become very Christ, the very same Christ that was Born of the Virgin Mary, and that suffered upon the Cross. And therefore pay them the same Divine Honour and Worship as if God or Christ did truly and openly appear before them.

Now the whole ground of this Dispute lies in the Words of the Institution, This is my Body, and this is my Blood. They say, that the Words ought to be understood in the plain literal Sense; we say they ought to be understood as used by Christ in his Instituting a Sacra­ment, that is, appointing one thing [Page 57] to be a representation and a memori­al of another; and which because it does represent, may very well be called by the Name of that Thing which is represented by it, which we think to be a very natu­ral, easy way of speaking, and a­greeable as to that present occasion, so to other terms of Speech of the same nature which had been in use among those People to whom our Saviour spoke.

But in particular, the time in which our Saviour Instituted this Sacrament was when they had been eating the Passover; which was a Feast much of the same Nature a­mong the Jews that this is among Christians; that was appointed by God in memory of thier Delive­rance when the Angel of God de­stroyed the First-born of all the Egyptians, and this in memory of [Page 58] that much greater Blessing to Chri­stians by the Death and Sufferings of Jesus Christ. As therefore the Master of the Family when he di­stributed the Paschal Lamb, was to say, This is the Lord's Passover, as being Instituted in memory of the Lord's passing over the Houses of the Israelites; so now being to In­stitute a new Sacrament for his Church of Christians, as that was for the Jews, he appoints a me­morial of the breaking of his Bo­dy and the shedding of his Blood, and in the very same figure of Speech that the other was. This is my Body, or this is the Lord's Body, could be no strange form of Speech to them, who just before had heard him say, This is the Lord's Passever, and who had been constantly used to that form of Speech. And accordingly, we do not find that they were in any dif­ficulty [Page 59] or surprize in the Matter, which they could not have avoid­ed if the Words are to be under­stood just as they sound; for it was a Matter more than a little a­mazing, especially to those who never had been used to such sort of Mysteries, that their Master should take a piece of Bread in his Hand, and with speaking a few Words, should make it become, without any apparent change, that very Body which was then standing be­fore them. That he should hold his own Body whole and entire in his own Hand; that they should put the same one Body whole and entire into each of their Mouths, that they should eat him first, and drink him afterwards, and yet that he should stand by them untouched all the while; besides the very un­couthness and horror of the Insti­tution, to eat their Master, a Per­son [Page 60] whom they loved, and had reason to love, and to drink Hu­man Blood; these are things one would think, should at least, sur­prize them a little, and make them ask some Questions about it; for they are indeed strange, monstrous Absurdities; whereas the sense we give to the Words is natural and easy, especially to the Persons to whom they were spoken, as being used to such expressions, and who had heard the like but just before, in a like Case.

I have this one thing more to add in this Matter, That as the Jewish Sacraments were Signs and Representations as well as ours, and so were commonly called by the Name of what they represented; so the inward Blessings conveyed to them was the same that is convey­ed by the Christian Sacraments; and therefore the Apostle tells us, they [Page 61] did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10.3,4. Now here is altogether as plain evidence that the Jews did eat and drink Christ before he was Born as the Christians do since: But that is a way of Transubstantiation which those of the Church of Rome don't yet acknowledge; and we may conclude, that if the A­postle had known any thing of that Doctrine among Christians he would have been more wary in his Expressions, and not have weak­ned the credit of it by using the same sort of Words where nothing of the same thing was meant.

From hence we may give an account of that large Discourse of our Saviour in the Sixth Chap­ter [Page 62] of St. John, My Flesh is Meat in­deed, and my blood is drink indeed, &c. For if he were Meat and Drink to the Jews so long before he was born, he might in the same manner be Meat and Drink to them still without the porten­tous way of putting his Body into their Mouths.

Christ is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World; and in the same sense was Meat and Drink to all good People from the Foundation of the World; that is, the benefits of his Death reach backward even to the begin­ning of the World though he were put to death several Thou­sand Years after. And they are the Benefits of his Death which are the great Food of Souls, that which gives, and preserves Life in them, as the Life of the Body [Page 63] is kept up by Meat and Drink.

And this suggests another Consi­deration, That we may know what sort of eating this is, if we only consider what sort of Life is kept up by it. The eating and drinking of a Body is proper to keep up the Life of a Body, but it's only the inward Grace and Assistance of God that keeps up the Life of a Soul; and there­fore we then eat and drink for that, when we do by Faith or any other method take in that Spiri­tual nourishment.

In a Word, Our Saviour says, He gave his flesh for the life of the World, and we may then not im­properly be said to eat his Flesh, when we receive in that Spiritual Life and Nourishment procured by it. And that this is the Sense is appa­rent [Page 64] from several expressions in that Discourse, as in v. 35. And Jesus saith unto them I am the Bread of Life, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst; in which words there are Two things which directly contradict this gross sense of eating his very Body; First that he alters here the expression of Eating, and so ex­plains himself, whosoever comes to me, and whosoever believes in me, which shews that this Blessing comes by Believing in Christ and not by gross carnal Eating. Second­ly, The Blessing it self is such as does not belong to all that only ex­ternally receive the Sacrament but to such only as come to Christ with true Faith; as may be seen not only in this Verse but every where through that Discourse; thus v. 51. If any man eat of this [Page 65] bread he shall live for ever. And v. 53. 54. Verily I say unto you, ex­cept ye eat the Flesh of he Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you, whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Which words are very true if understood of the feeding our Souls by the Benefits received from the Body and Blood of Christ; but cannot be under­stood of external eating of him in the Sacrament; for very wick­ed Men often do that according to the Opinion of the Romish Church, and are only the worse instead of being the better for it.

This I believe is abundantly sufficient to shew that the Sense we put upon the Sacramental words, This is my Body, &c. is natural and easie, agreeable to [Page 66] the design of a Sacrament, and other expressions of the same kind in Scripture; and if it be so, we need not be solicitous to prove any thing more about it; for there are so many Absurdities and gross Contradictions in the contra­ry Opinion that we ought to lay hold of any thing that can but make sense of the Words, and a­void those Monstrous Absurdi­ties.

But I shall now indeavour to prove from the Words them­selves, that the sense which the Church of Rome puts upon them, cannot be the true sense of them.

1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is, that our Saviour by pronouncing these words this is my Body, made that to be his Bo­dy [Page 67] which before was only Bread; but certainly the literal sense of the words does not import any thing of this, and it's the literal sense which they must stick to, or else the whole support of their cause is gone; now according to all the Rules of speaking it ought to have been his Body before he could truly pronounce it to be so; but this they deny, and say it was only Bread till these words were pronounced, and that the calling it his Body made it become so; which is a form of Speech quite unknown to the World, and I challenge them to bring any Au­thor either Sacred or Prophane that ever made use of words of this kind in such a Sense.

Since therefore it is confessed that what our Saviour took into his Hands was Bread, and that it re­mained [Page 68] Bread till the speaking of these words, This is my Body, and since those words in their natural construction cannot be understood to effect any Change; it must re­main Bread still; and be only the Body of Christ in such a sense as Bread may be called his Body, that is in such a sense as the Lamb they eat of but just before was called the Passover; by being a Representation and Commemo­ration of it.

2. Another Argument I would make use of is this, that our Sa­viour did not by pronouncing those words make what he gave them to be his very Body and Blood, because after the pronoun­cing of them, he calls what he gave in the Cup the Fruit of the Vine. Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the [Page 69] Vine, until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God; In which words are contain­ed these three, I think, plain Reasons, which prove, that it was Wine and not his Blood that he gave them.

1. That He expresly calls it the fruit of the Vine, and the Words, they say, are to be taken in the lite­ral Sense, and literally nothing else is the fruit of the Vine but Wine, at least, the Blood of Christ is not.

2. In his saying that he would drink no more of it till he drank it new in the Kingdom of God, it is supposed that he had heretofore drank of what he then gave them. But I suppose, it will hardly be said, that he ever before drank his own Blood.

3. As the Words suppose that he had drank before of what he then gave them, so they do that he would drink of it again; which very likely must be understood of his eating and drinking with them after his Resurrestion, for then the Kingdom of God, that is, the new State of the Christian Church, was come. And therefore unless the Blood of Christ can be properly called the fruit of the Vine; unless it can be supposed that he had drank his own Blood before, and did de­sign to drink it afterward, these Words must evince, that it was Wine which he then gave them.

I would not conceal that tho' St. Matthew and St. Mark, recite the Words which I have Quoted, after the Consecration of the Cup, yet one of the Evangelists St. Luke [Page 71] recites them before, and so they may seem to relate to a Cup that went about the Table at the Pas­chal Supper. But this Objection, if well considered, does rather the more confirm what I have been proving; for two of the Evange­lists do place it immediately after the Consecration and delivery of the Sacramental Cup, and in them it is apparent they can referr to no­thing else but that. Now if our Opinion about this Sacrament, be true, the difference betwixt the Evangelists in this Case, is not material, as importing no difference at all in the Doctrine of the Sacrament, though our Saviour's Words are reported different ways, and so this secures the Honour and Authority of all the Evangelists. But if our Savi­our's Words are to be understood as the Church of Rome understands [Page 72] them, it's impossible in any tolera­ble manner to reconcile the Evan­gelists; for St. Matthew and St. Mark, must, upon this suppositi­on, not only put his Words wrong together, and out of that order he spoke them, but must also quite misrepresent his meaning, and that in a Point of great Con­sequence: Which, I believe, can be no way consistent with the O­pinion which the Church of God has always had of these Gospels. But I shall consider this Matter a little more fully in that which I have to urge in the Third Place.

3. I desire it may be considered that the Words of our Saviour in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood literally, because as they are recited by the Evangelists they are not literally [Page 73] the same, but differ as to the lite­ral meaning very materially. Mat. 26.28. Mark 14.24. Luke 22.20. St. Matthew and St. Mark in the Insti­stution of the Cup recite our Saviour's Words thus, This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you; St. Luke recites them thus, This is the New Testament in my Blood. Now from this difference among them, I would observe these Two Things.

1. That the Evangelists being so little curious to recite the very same Words that our Saviour spake, could not have any Noti­on of a strict necessity of a literal meaning, and of such a strange Doctrine which could have no foundation but in the literal inter­pretation of the very Words that he spake; this had been at best very strange negligence in a [Page 74] Matter of so great Consequence.

2. I would observe that if our Interpretation of the Words be true, the Evangelists are easily re­conciled, as agreeing in the same general Sense tho' differing in the Expressions; because both of them denote a Commemoration of the Blood of Christ, and of the New Testament or Covenant founded up­on it; and it is not, then, very ma­terial which is placed first; but if they are to be taken literaly it's impossible ever to make them a­gree; and so one of the Evangelists must not only have mis-recited our Saviour's Words; but quite have mis-understood his meaning, and have done what he could to lead People wrong in a great Point of Faith: For certainly the true, real Blood of Christ is a very diffe­rent thing from the New Covenant [Page 75] or Testament which is founded up­on it.

But it will appear still of greater Consequence to keep to the very Words which Christ spake if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be true, that it is the repeating the Words of our Saviour which effects the Transubstantiation. For I would ask, Supposing a Man should Con­secrate with the Words of St. Luke, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, would that change the Wine (not to say the Cup) into the very Blood of Christ? Certainly it would not do it by force of those Words, for they intimate no such thing; and it is not unlikely but those were the very Words our Sa­viour spake, for not only St. Luke uses them, but St. Paul, and that upon a solemn occasion when it concerned him much to give a true [Page 76] Representation of this Sacrament; as you may see, 1 Cor. Chap. 11. The occasion of his mentioning the In­stitution of this Sacrament was ve­ry great Irreverence, which some were guilty of in receiving of it, indeed such, as it was almost im­possible for them to be guilty of, had they believed what the Church of Rome now believes about it; it was therefore very necessary that the Apostle should speak clear­ly and plainly out in this matter; and we see he does solemnly usher in what he says with the Authori­ty of Christ, For I have received of the Lord, that which I also deliver­ed unto you, in &c. And then he re­peats the Words as St. Luke does; and not only so, but calls the o­ther part of the Sacrament Bread near Ten times in that Chapter.

4. The Last Argument I shall make use of upon this Head, is this, That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon another ac­count does not agree with the Words of our Blessed Saviour. The Opinion of that Church is, That under each Species, as they call it, whole Christ is contained, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity; so that both are but just the very same Thing, in nothing different, but in outward appearance, which only deceives our Senses. And it is up­on this Opinion chiefly, that they ground the denyal of the Cup to the People; because, say they, should they have the Cup, they would have no more, but just the very same thing they had in the other Kind: And supposing their Opinion true, the Argument may, for any thing I know, have some force in it; but then they ought [Page 78] not to deny us leave to Argue the other way; That, that Opinion must needs be false, which makes our Saviour guilty of a great Ab­surdity in appointing Two Kinds, but both really the same thing, and one of them perfectly unneces­sary.

But that which I would chiefly take notice of, is, That this Do­ctrine of theirs, contradicts the Words of our Saviour, for what they make but One Thing he plain­ly makes Two, and calls them by Two different Names. The one he calls his Body, the other he calls his Blood, which supposes them to be Two different Things, as plain as Words can express them.

They say indeed, That in the Glorified Body of Christ, the Body and Blood cannot be separated, and [Page 79] therefore were the Words to be ta­ken in such a sense as to consider them separated, they would con­tain a great Absurdity; so that wherever the one is, the other by concomitancy must be there too.

But who told them, that the Glorified Body of Christ is in the Sacrament? The Words of the Institution intimate no such thing, but speak of his Body given and his Blood shed, which certainly was separate from his Body. But how­ever, this is arguing from Reason against the Words, and is just the very same thing which they con­demn as Heretical in us; And if this be once allowed, they must throw off the whole Doctrine; for we can shew them Ten times as many Absurdities in the Doctrine of Transustantiation, as they can in supposing the Body and Blood [Page 80] of Christ to subsist separately.

In short, either we must stick to the very Words of our Blessed Saviour, or we must not; if we must, their Opinion must be false; which makes what our Saviour calls Two Things, to be but One; if we must not stick to the very Words, but interpret them ac­cording to right Reason and other Places of Scripture, they then give up their Cause.

To conclude this Head, What Reason can there be imagined why our Saviour should in a solemn manner, at different Times, and under different Names, give the very same thing? call the one his Body, and the other his Blood, when according to the Nature of the Thing he might as well have inverted the Names, and have [Page 81] called that his Blood, which he calls his Body, and so on the o­ther side. There cannot, I believe, be any Reason thought of but on­ly this, That the one Kind, the Bread, was very proper to repre­sent the breaking of his Body; the other the Wine, to represent the shedding of his Blood; which is the very thing that we would have; for then there is a sufficient Reason for these Names without any Bodily Presence at all.

I have been the longer in con­sidering the Sense of the Scripture in this Matter, because your Wri­ters commonly boast more of the Scripture being for you in this Case, than in any other Controversies betwixt us: And, I think, I have proved more than I need have done, in proving that the Sense your Church puts upon the Words [Page 82] of our Saviour, cannot be the true Sense of them: It being sufficient in a Matter of this Nature, which is loaded with so many Absurdi­ties, to have shewed that they did fairly admit of another Interpreta­tion.

But having so fully Confuted this Doctrine out of the Scriptures, I am now more at liberty to shew you the gross Absurdities and the monstrous Contradictions that are involved in it; tho' in truth, it is so full fraught with Contradicti­ons that it's a hard matter to know where to begin; I shall therefore content my self just to repeat some of them which are ready Collected to my hand, by a Great Divine of our own.

These are some of those mon­strous Contradictions which are in­volved in this Doctrine of Tran­substantiation; I shall only observe these few things more about this Matter, and then conclude this Point.

1. That you ought not for the avoiding of these Difficulties to con­tent your selves to believe in ge­neral [Page 88] that somehow or other, you don't know how, this Sacrament is the Body of Christ; for your Church has determined the Matter, that it is the very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary, and was afterward Crucified, and that there remains no substance of Bread but only this Body of Christ after Consecration.

2. I would observe that none of these Difficulties are taken off by considering Christ's Body as glori­fied, for besides, that if it be a Body still, it must have the Pro­perties of a Body, this Sacrament was Instituted while our Saviour lived in the World, and had just such a Body as other Men, of the same bigness, and all other quali­ties as to his Body the same. And therefore in interpreting these Words This is my Body, all the [Page 89] Difficlties are still the same as if he were now living; or as they would be, were they spoken of the Body of any other Man.

3. I desire that you would con­sider, that you may be sure we do not mis-understand nor mis-repre­sent your Opinion, because these Absurdities are what your own Divines take notice of, as well as ours, and do not pretend to be able to give any direct Answer to them.

4. I would observe, That tho' these Contradictions are so appa­rent and staring that no Body that hears of this Doctrine can well miss of them, yet they are new, and none of them ever heard of in the Church for many Hundred Years; from whence we inferr, that the Doctrine it self was as lit­tle heard of.

5. We do not find that any Christian for many Hundred Years ever denied or disputed the truth of this Doctrine, from whence we cannot but conclude, that it was then unknown in the Church; for it must have had strange good for­tune to escape without any Con­tradiction, when all the Articles of the Creed had been Disputed round.

6. As this was not disputed or denied by any Christians, so nei­ther was it objected against the Christian Religion by any Hea­then, not even by Julian himself, who, as being an Apostate, must have known all the Secrets of our Religion; whereas in truth, there had been Ten times more weight in this, than in all the Objections together which they made use of against Christianity.

7. There were several things in the Primitive Church inconsistent with the belief of this Doctrine, in particular that of mixing Water with the Wine, the Water to re­present the People, as the Wine re­presented the Blood of Christ; of which St. Cyprian gives us a full Ac­count.Vid. Cypr. Epist. 63.

8. I would observe, That the Church of Rome can assign no pe­culiar necessity, or usefulness of this Sacrament above others, that should give a probable Reason of the mighty difference betwixt this and others, and of such a strange wonderful Dispensation as the eat­ing our Blessed Saviour himself: Nay, with them both Baplism and Confession are esteemed much more necessary, and the omission of them [Page 92] more dangerous than the omission of this Sacrament.

9. To conclude this whole Mat­ter, I think, I have sufficiently shewed that this Doctrine has no foundation in Scripture; I would have considered at large the Sense of the Primitive Church in it; and I do not question but to have been able very clearly to make out that it was a Doctrine quite unknown to the Church of God for many Ages; but that was not consistent with the Brevity I am at present forced to use; I would therefore only observe this one thing, That we ought not to conclude this to have been the Doctrine of the Fa­thers only from some accidental or general Expressions which they sometimes make use of; It's plain that none of them designedly treat of this Matter, or explain it to us, [Page 93] none of them recite it among the Articles of their Faith, none of them take any notice of the dif­ficulties of it, no Christians appear to have been shocked at this Do­ctrine, and no Heathens to have Objected it; all which could hard­ly have been avoided had this been the constant Doctrine of the Catholick. Church.

And as for General Expressions, the calling what they received the Body and Blood of Christ, that could not be avoided, the Nature of the thing requiring them even accord­ing to our Opinion of this Matter: And we see that notwithstanding we have made such express Decla­rations against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and that by rea­son of this Controversy we express our selves more cautiously, than we may suppose the Fathers would do before any Controversy was mo­ved [Page 94] ved about it, yet some general Ex­pressions of our own Divines are of­ten turned against us by those of the Church of Rome, and there is no question but were the Authors of them as Old as the Fathers, they would be as confidently quoted for the Proof of Transubstantiation as any Sayings of the Fathers now are.

And this shews us how this Do­ctrine, tho' monstrous in it self, might under the Covert of such General Expressions, without any great stir or bustle, insensibly creep into the Church, especially in very Ignorant and Superstitions Times; tho' after all, our Divines have sufficiently traced the foot­steps of it, and shewed the pro­gress it made, and the opposition it met with in the World before it could be Established.

The next thing to be spoken to is the Idolatry of the Church of Rome. In the Sacrfice of the Mass, and in the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of other Saints, as it is practised in that Church.

Now Idolatry may be of two sorts.

• I. When People worship any thing for the Supreme God, which really is not so.
• II. When they give that Worship to any Creature, which is due only to God, and which he has appropri­ated to himself.

As to the first sort of Idolatry that of Worshiping some thing as the Supreme God which realy is not so, we do not charge the Church of Rome with it, unless per­haps [Page 96] the worshipping of what is but Bread and Wine in the Sacrament instead of Jesus Christ may come under that head; I say, perhaps here, because I would not enter into any thing, besides the main cause, that may be contested; for tho' Jesus Christ be God, and they worship some thing as Jesus Christ which is not so, yet the mistake being chiefly about his Human Na­ture, I would not positively affirm a thing which may bring on any dispute, which is not to our purpose.

This they do not deny, that they give the highest Divine Wor­ship, which they call Latria, to that Object, which they take in­to their hands, and put into their Mouths in receiving this Sacra­ment; which I shall at present call Idolatry, but with a promise to re­cant [Page 97] it whensoever they shall answer the Reasons I have given to prove that what they thus A­dore is only Bread and Wine; or whenever they shall give me a more proper Name, by which I may call that great Sin of giving the highest Divine Worship to a Crea­ture. The truth is, that such a Worship may not only be called Idolatry, but the most absurd and senseless Idolatry, that ever the World fell into: But this I shall not now insist upon, having spok­en so much already to that which is the foundation of it, the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation.

The other Matter in which we charge them with Idolatry, is, the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and other Saints. Now in this we do not charge them with owning any of those to be God, but only with [Page 98] giving them that Worship and Ho­nour which cannot lawfully be gi­ven to any thing which is but a Creature. In speaking to this, I shall consider these Two Things.

• 1. Whether the giving to a Creature the Worship due only to God, may not be properly termed Idolatry, tho' at the same time we pay that Worship, we own it not to be God, but a Creature?
• 2. Whether the Worship given to Saints by the Invocation practised in the Church of Rome, be of that sort, such as God has appropriated to himself, and consequently such as becomes Idolatrous when applied to a Creature.

1. As to the first of these, Those of the Roman Church cannot deny but it must be a very great Sin to [Page 99] give the Worship of God to Crea­tures; but they deny it to be pro­perly Idolatry. We on the other side, grant, that it is not Idolatry, in the highest sense of the Word, and in the sense in which they commonly understand it, viz. The owning a Creature to be God. So that so far we are agreed; but then we say, that Word may be used in a lower sense, to denote what they grant to be a Sin, as well as we, but will not call it by that Name, so that our difference in this Matter, is only about the use of a Word.

Now we think our selves in the right in the use of this Word, up­on these Accounts,

1. Because we have no other Name to express that which is not denied to be a very great Sin, [Page 100] The giving God's Worship to Crea­tures; and having no peculiar Name for it, we think it not improper to give it the Name of that Sin which is of nearest affinity to it, and of the same general kind; as is done in many other Cases. Thus our Sa­viour calls looking upon a Woman to lust after her, by the name of Adultery, and the like. The next step to owning a Creature to be God, is to give it the Worship due to God, and therefore we think it not at all improper to call these two Sins by the same general Name, especi­ally having no Word in our Lan­guage, more proper by which we may express it.

2. We think our selves fully ju­stified in the expression, because the Scripture does every where charge the Heathen Worship of their Gods and Images in general, [Page 101] with the Crime of Idolatry; tho nothing can be more apparent than that many of the Heathen owned only one Supreme God, and that all of them looked upon many of the Gods whom they Worshipped, not as Supreme, but as Gods of an In­ferior Nature, and had much the same Opinion of them, as the Ro­manists have now of Saints and Angels, and had the very same pre­tences and excuses for the Worship­ping of them which the Romanists make use of to defend themselves. They owned many of their Gods to have been born, and to have dyed, and it was hardly possible to look upon any such, to be the Su­preme God. In a Word, There is nothing more evident than this, that they had several Ranks, and Orders, and Degrees among their Gods, and it was impossible to look upon all these to be Supreme: [Page 102] And yet the Scripture every where without any distinction, charges their whole Worship with Idolatry; and so do the Primitive Fathers, as well as the Scriptures; particu­larly, they thought it to be Idola­try to throw a little Incense into the Fire before the Statues of their Emperors. From whence we may plainly inferr these Two Things;

First, That they thought that there might be Idolatry in giving such Worship as was appropriated to God, to Creatures, tho' they were not pretended to be any thing else but Creatures, only Creatures high­ly exalted, and in high Favour with God, as Saints and Angels are supposed to be.

Secondly, That they looked up­on the offering of Incense, to be a part of Worship appropriated to God, [Page 103] and that could not be given to a Creature without the Crime of Ido­latry; which is a Matter the Church of Rome have reason to consider well of, who offer it every Day to those, who however they may have been better Men, are certain­ly no more Gods than the Heathen Emperors were.

To conclude this Matter, The sense of the Primitive Church in the business of Idolatry, is plainly seen in this, that they every where ac­cuse the Arians of Idolatry for Wor­shipping of Jesus Christ, for this ve­ry Reason, because they owned him not to be God, or at least, not the Supreme God; from whence it plainly appears, that they had the same Notions in this Case, that we now have, That Men may be guilty of Idolatry in giving Divine Worship to what they believe is not God.

Thirdly, The Apostle calls Cove­tousness Idolatry; which tho' it be a figurative Expression, yet however, denotes to us the thing for which I am now pleading. The Covetous Man does not look upon his Money to be his God, or intend to give it any of that Worship he thinks due to God; I believe no Covetous Man in the World can be justly charged with either of these; but because he places his Heart and his Affections upon it, which ought to be given to none but God; because his Money is the thing in which he puts his trust and his confidence, therefore it is, that he is said to make an Idol of it, and to be guilty of Idolatry: And so it is as to the Worship­ping of Saints, tho' their Worship­pers know very well that they are not Gods, yet because they give [Page 105] them the Worship of God, that outward Adoration, and inward Reverence, hope, trust, and depen­dance which are due only to God, they do by that make them Idols, and are justly chargeable with Ido­latry.

I now proceed to the Second Point, To shew, that the Wor­ship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin, and o­ther Saints, by the Invocation pra­ctised among them, is Divine Wor­ship, such as ought to be given to none but God.

We are not concern'd at pre­sent, to enquire into the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, but into the Practice; that being the thing particularly Censur'd in the Test-Act; tho' indeed, the Practice of any Church, is the best Exposition [Page 106] of Her Doctrine. The Council of Trent leaves this Matter in general Terms, determines that we must seek the help and aid of the Saints, Opem Auxili­um (que). Sess. 25. but does not fix the measures of it: However, since it does not Censure what was then the Com­mon Practice of that Church, we may take it for granted, that the meaning of the Council was, that we must seek their aid and help in the Methods which were then in use; for if they disapproved of what was then commonly Pra­ctised, it concerned them much to speak out, as to set their own Peo­ple right, and to keep them out of dangerous Practices; so also to vindicate the Honour of their Church, which was then openly charged with Idolatry upon ac­count of those Practices.

We agree with the Church of Rome in this, That we ought to have a great honour and respect for the Saints of God. That we ought to love their Memory, to endea­vour to imitate the good Examples they have left us, and to bless God for the Benefits he has bestowed up­on the Church by their means.

And above other Saints, we ought to have a great esteem and value for the Blessed Virgin, who had the Honour to be the Mother of our Lord, and by that, to be so nearly concerned in the greatest Blessing that ever was bestowed upon the World,

But we differ from that Church in this, That they Adore the Saints and Pray to them; and that not as one Friend would desire another to Pray for him, but with all the [Page 108] solemn Ceremonies and Circum­stances of Prayer, and with the very same with which they pray to God; they do it in their Churches, Kneeling, and with their Eyes lift up to Heaven, and with all the signs of Devotion which can be shewed, not only from one Creature to ano­ther, but from a Creature to its Creator. They make Vows to them; burn Incense to their Images; dedi­cate themselves to their Service; make Offerings to them, and the like.

They pray to them directly to bestow Blessings upon them. Thus in the Office of the Bles­sed Virgin, She is not only cal­led the Gate of Heaven, but she is intreated to loose the bonds of the Gvilty, to give light to the Blind, and to drive away our Evils, and to shew her self to be a Mother. They [Page 109] pray to her therein, for Purity of Life, and a safe Conduct to Heaven. She is commonly called the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Mercy, and which is most Shameful of all, The Psalms of David, Com­posed for the Honour of God, and which contain the highest strains of Devotion which a Crea­ture can give to God, are by a Saint of that Church Bonaventura turned to the Honour of the Virgin, by putting her Name where the Name of God is put by David: And this was neither Cen­sured by the Council of Trent, nor has been by any Pope, that I can hear of, to this Day; but on the contrary, the Author of it has been Canonized, and the Book is in Common use, which perhaps, is one of the blackest pieces of Idola­try that ever was in the VVorld. And tho' a Church must not al­ways [Page 110] bear the Guilt of what is pu­blish'd by private Persons in her Communion, tho' it do pass with­out Censure; Yet considering how careful that Church has been in ma­ny Matters of much less moment especially where her own Authority is concerned, and how solicitous they are to keep Books that make against them, out of the Hands of their People, it looks at least, like espousing the Blasphemies, and Idolatrous Prayers and Praises of it, to let this Book go so freely a­bout without Censure, and to in­courage it so far, as to make the Author of it a Saint.

These, and many other In­stances, might be given of the Worship they give to the Blessed Virgin; and tho' they are some­what more modest, with relation to other Saints; yet what I have [Page 111] taken notice of already, may suf­ficiently shew, that they give them the VVorship which God has ap­propriated to himself. I would only therefore mention further, that in many Instances, they pray to them to bestow those Blessings which only God can give, such as to open the Gates of Heaven, to unty the bonds of their Iniquity, to heal their spiritual Maladies; and many o­ther of the same Nature, of which, I shall give them Examples at large, if required, or, if I find it neces­sary to confirm any thing that I have now said.

I now proceed to take notice of some of those Reasons we have to prove, that this Invocation is part of that Worship which God has appropriated to himself, and which consequently cannot be given to any Creature, without the Crime of Idolatry.

1. I desire it may be considered, that the Scripture does every where speak of Prayer as applied to God, and to none else, and that without the least intimation of any such Distinctions as are made use of in the Church of Rome. VVe have in the Old Testa­ment, the History of the Church of God, for near 4000 Years; and in all that time, there is not the least instance, or intimation, of a­ny Prayer put up to any Creature.

It may be it will be said, That the Saints were not then in Hea­ven, and so were not in a condi­tion to hear the Prayers that should be put up to them, and had not so much Favour with God, as they may be supposed to have now, since the Resurrection of Christ, that he has admitted them so nearly in­to his Presence.

Now in Answer to this, I shall not at present, pretend to deter­mine, whether the Saints of the Old Testament were in Heaven be­fore Christ's Resurrection, or not; nor whether they, and other Saints since are there now; because a great many Christians of no mean Authority in the Church of God, have been of different Opinions in these Matters; only I think these two or three Things, are very plain.

1. That Enoch and Elias were supposed by a great many, before our Saviour's time, to be in Heaven; and they must have been looked upon by them, to be very great Fa­vourites of God, by being taken out of this World in so strange and wonderful a manner, as the Scrip­ture tells us they were; and yet we hear as little of praying to [Page 114] them, as to any other Person.

2. Supposing it not agreed up­on then, whether Saints were in Heaven, yet all agreed that the Angels were. And they were al­together as well capacitated to hear and answer Prayers, which should have been put up to them then, as they are now, and yet we find as little of Mens praying to Angels, as they did to Saints in those Times.

3. Whatever Reason can be as­signed for praying to Creatures now, would have held as well then; whatever necessity, or conveniency, or advantage, or fitness there may be in it, were all the same, and in­deed much greater then, than they are now, upon these Two Accounts,

1. Because the Christian Religion is of it self a State of much greater Perfection than any Dispensation that was before it. God has in it revealed himself more clearly and plainly to the World, has more e­videnced his Love and Tenderness to Mankind, has given us greater incouragements to draw near to him; He speaks to us in the Gospel as a Father to his Children, as a reconciled Father in Jesus Christ; and therefore accordingly, in that Form of Prayer which our Saviour has left us, that is the Appellation which he has taught us to make use of, Our Father which art in Heaven; Now, why should a Child be afraid to approach the Presence of his Father? Or, what need has he of any body to introduce him? Under the Jewish Dispensation, when the Law was given with Thunderings and Lightnings, when [Page 116] God was called by the terrible Name of the Lord of Hosts, there might be more reason to think of some body to introduce them to his Presence; which yet we do not find was ever recommended, or practised among them: How much more may Christians come with boldness to the Throne of Mercy, and expect to find Grace to help in time of need? But what is more con­siderable:

2. Christians have Christ for their Mediator, who is able to save to the uttermost all those that come to God by him; He is in Heaven ready to plead their cause, and to get their Prayers heard, and their Persons ac­cepted; and they that have such an Advocate, need not fly to any else. But it was not so with the Church before Christ; and therefore if the thing had been at all lawful, they [Page 117] had much more reason to make Saints and Angels their Patrons, than Christians have. And yet we see that in the Account which we have in the Bible of the Church of God before Christ for near 4000 Years, there is not the least hint of any thing of this kind.

3. What I have said already, that all along in the Old Testament, Prayer is appropriated to God, and that without any reserve, or distin­ction, may be sufficient to shew the Mind of God in that Case: But I have this further to add, That the same Scripture, adds with the same general words, condemn as Idola­trous all the Old Heathen Worship: Now I have shewed before, that much of this Worship was paid to Creatures, under the same Notions and Apprehensions, that those of the Church of Rome Worship Saints [Page 118] and Angels; indeed there was this difference, that most of those Worshipped in the Church of Rome, were probably good Crea­tures, as most of those whom the Heathens Worshipped, were bad ones, and it may be Devils: But this distinction of good or bad Crea­tures, may make the Worship more or less Impious, but not more or less Idolatrous; whatever will make it Idolatry in the one Case, will make it so in the other. The Wor­ship appropriated to God, is no more due to a good Creature, than it is to a bad one; since therefore I have shewed, that the Scripture every where condemns the Wor­ship which the Heathen gave to what they owned not to be God, and which they did not intend to Worship as the Supreme God; I say, since this is condemned, not only as Impious, for choosing ill [Page 119] Creatures, but as Idolatrous for giving what belonged only to God: this must equally prove all Creature Worship to be Idolatrous.

4. This Creature Worship, is as litle heard of in the New Testament as it is in the Old. Heard of, it is indeed, but what approbation it met with, we may see by consider­ing these particulars.

The first Instance is that of the Devil desiring our Saviour to wor­ship him, upon promise to give him all the Kingdoms of the World: But let us see what our Saviour answers; he does not put him off with tel­ling him either the Dignity of his own Person, or the unfitness of the thing, in Worshipping him because he was a Devil; but he gives such a Reason as will hold against all Worshipping of Creatures. [Page 120] Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. From which words, I would observe these Two Things.

1. That the Worship which the Devil desires, and which our Sa­viour says must be given only to God, was not to offer Sacrifice to him, which the Writers of the Church of Rome, make the only outward Worship appropriated to God, but it was to fall down and adore him; from whence we may inferr, that to fall down and adore any Creature, must be Idolatry, which part of Worship its apparent the Church of Rome give to their Saints and Angels.

2. I would observe here, that the Devil did not pretend to be the Supreme God, but plainly the contrary; for when he shews our [Page 121] Saviour all the Kingdoms of the World, he tells him, that all these things were given to him, Luke. 4.6. in which he plainly professes, not a Supreme, But a De­legated Power; so that had not our Saviour in his Answer, con­demned the Worship of Creatures, tho' owned and acknowledged to be Creatures, he had not given a full Answer to the Devil, for the De­vil did not desire to be Worshipped as the Supreme God.

Another Instance we have of this kind, is that of St. John in the Revelations falling down to Wor­ship the Angel, who we see puts him off it, with the same kind of general Words, that our Saviour uses in the former Instance, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow ser­vant, Worship God, Rev. 22.18.19. Here I would observe, as in [Page 122] the former Case, that the Wor­ship which the Angel rejects, and appropriates to God, is falling down at his feet to Adore him. And in the next place, I would observe, that had Adoration been due to an Angel, the true Answer to St. John had been, that he should have a care not to mistake him to be God, who was but an Angel, and so give him more than was due to him; but we see he throws off the whole without any reserve or distinction, and for a Reason that will hold against all Crea­ture Worship, that he was his Fel­low-servant. In a word, it had been no great secret for the Angel to tell St. John, that God was to be Worshipped, or that God only was to be Worshipped with an inward apprehension, of his being God, neither of these were any great Mystery, or to the purpose. [Page 123] And therefore his meaning must be, that Religious Worship, such as that Adoration was, ought to be given to none but God.

I shall name but one more place of Scripture, in which this Crea­ture Worship is taken notice of, and that is Coloss. 2.18. Let no man be­guile you of your reward by a volun­tary humility, and Worshipping of Angels. The Apostle in this, and the following Verses, makes use of Two Arguments against the Wor­shipping of Angels. First, that it is a voluntary Humility, that is, tho' Men may pretend a great deal of Humility, that it is not fit for such mean Creatures as they to go directly into the Presence of God, but that they ought to ap­ply to the Angels of God to be their Introducers; yet all this, is Humility of their own inventing, [Page 124] such as God has not required at their hands.

2. That this Worshipping of Angels, is leaving Christ their Head; He is the only Mediator betwixt God and Men, and therefore ap­plying to any other, is leaving him who is the Head of the Church; and then no wonder if it beguile us of our reward. This Argument is very plain and ve­ry strong against the practice of Praying to Saints or Angels, and it hath this one thing very observable in it, That if this Text proves it unlawful to set up any more Mediators but Jesus Christ, it must be understood of Mediators of Intercession, for no body could so much as pretend, that Angels were Mediators of Redemption, as those of the Church of Rome [Page 125] (without any ground at all) make the distinction.

I might shew farther the I­dolatry of this Practice, of pray­ing to Saints and Angels, from this, that it must suppose Divine Per­fections in the Creatures to whom we pray; as of Power to be able to supply our Wants, especially, in those Prayers that are put up to them directly to beg such, or such Blessings from them; and so of Knowledge, because Prayer (at least Mental Prayer) supposes that the Persons we pray to, know our Hearts, and the secret thoughts, and sincerity or insincerity of all the Men and Women in the World, and that they can perfectly attend to them all at the same time; which are Perfections that the Scripture never attributes to any but God, and in the Nature of the [Page 126] thing, it is hardly conceivable of any Creature; but I shall content my self to have named these things, and shall conclude this whole Matter, with just proposing those two short Considerations.

1. I desire it may be considered, that in the Church of Rome there is no External part of Religion ap­propriated to God, and incom­municable to Creatures, but the Sa­crifice of the Mass, and if in the preceding Discourses, I have o­verthrown the foundation of that, there is then nothing at all re­maining.

2. I desire it may be considered, that the Reasons commonly given to justify Prayers to Saints and An­gels, would, if well followed, hinder Men from ever praying to God at all, as in fact, this has [Page 127] much estranged Men from God in those Countries where they have had no Protestants among them to make them ashamed of it; and even nearer our selves, I believe, we may justly say, that at least Ten Prayers are put up to Crea­tures for one that is put up to God.

Of the Pope's Supremacy. I now come to consider the Oath of Supremacy, which con­sists of Two Parts.

• I. A Declaration of the Unlaw­fulness, and Impiety of taking up Arms against the King upon Ac­count of His, being Excommunica­ted, or Deprived by the Pope.
• II. A Renunciation of the Pope's pre­tended Supremacy over the Church of Christ, particularly over that part of it in this Kingdom.

As to the First of these, I need not insist upon it, becanse if I can prove, the Second, That the Pope has of right no Spiritual Power here, the other must of course fall with it. I would only observe before I proceed, That if those of the Ro­man Communion among us, do be­lieve, that the Pope has a Power from God to Excommunicate, and to Deprive Princes of their Kingdoms for Heresy, and that therefore they are bound to concur with the Pope as far they can, to put his Sentence in Execution, this must make them Enemies to all Protestants, and con­sequently, they have reason to ex­pect that Protestants should have a care of them. But if they do believe that God has not given any such Power to the Pope, they have then Reason to have a care of their Guide, who is doing what he can, under pretence of Authority from [Page 129] God, to carry them to Treason and Murther, and all the Villanies which must follow an attempt to turn out their King, and all his Protestant Subjects that will stand by him: But I have in some measure taken notice of these things alrea­dy, and therefore shall not now inlarge upon them; but proceed to consider the Grounds of the Popes pretence to Supremacy.

The Opinion of the Church of Rome, with relation to his Supre­macy is this, That Jesus Christ made Saint Peter the Supreme Governor and Head, as of all the rest of the Apostles, so also of the whole Church; That St. Peter was afterward Bi­shop of Rome, and that by Divine Appointment his Successors the Bi­shops of Rome, are to enjoy the same Supremacy over the Church which he had.

Their Opinion about the Su­premacy of St. Peter, is founded chiefly upon those Words of our Saviour, Mat. 16.18,19. Ʋpon this Rock I will build my Church. — And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. They say, our Saviour does by these Words, promise to St. Peter, to make him Monarch of the whole Church: We say, that tho' these Words were spoken to St. Peter upon occasion of his speaking to our Saviour immediately before, yet, that this Promise does as much belong to the rest of the Apostles, as it does to him, and that there­fore, whatever Power may be here promised to him over the Church, there is none promised over the rest of the Apostles, and that consequently, his Succes­sors can claim nothing from hence [Page 131] over the Successors of all the Apo­stles, the other Bishops of the Christian Church.

But to consider this Matter more particularly, we may take notice,

1. That the rest of the Apo­stles did not apprehend that St. Peter had here any peculiar Pow­er promised him above them; for we find that not long after, they were contending, who should be the greatest; by which it's plain, they did not then apprehend that our Saviour had already determin­ed the Matter: And as for our Sa­viour himself, he does not at all en­deavour to put them right, as it was of great consequence he should do, supposing that he de­signed St. Peter for their Gover­nour; but he endeavours to teach them all humility, and not to af­fect [Page 132] Power or Authority over one another. And the same instance we have in the Case of Zebe­dee's Children, when their Mo­ther came to desire that the one might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in his Kingdom, that is, that they might be the Persons of chief Favour, and Au­thority with him; their Petition plainly implies, that they knew nothing of St. Peter's Prerogatives; and our Saviour's Answer, which you may see at large, Mat. 20. im­plies as plainly, that neither St. Pe­ter, nor any body else was to have such Power in the Church, as the Bishops of Rome have since pre­tended to.

2. I would observe, that these Words of our Saviour to St. Peter, do not actually invest him with any Power, but are only a Promise [Page 133] to him; and therefore the best way to see what was peculiar to him in it above the rest of the Apostles, will be to see the fulfilling of the Promise, and his being Actually in­vested in it. That this is only a Promise appears from the Words themselves, which run in the fu­ture tense, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: And I believe, they of the Church of Rome will not deny this, because they say, that the Apostles were not Priests till our Saviour made them so in the Institution of the Lord's Supper. Now if we consider the Actual Investiture into this Power, there is nothing peculiar to Saint Peter. Our Saviour gives them all their Power together, in Words much of the same Nature with that Promise before to St. Peter; Re­ceive ye the Holy Ghost, whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted, and [Page 134] whose soever sins ye retain they are re­tained. And as for the Expression, Ʋpon this Rock I will build my Church, there is much the same said of all the Apostles. The Church is said to be built upon the founda­tion of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone.

3. The best way to see whether St. Peter had any such Supremacy, will be to see whether he exercised any, whether he did any Acts, or Offices which belonged to so high a Power. There must be constant­ly so many occasions for the exer­cise of that Power, that if he had any such we could not miss of In­stances of it. The Times of the Apostles were indeed, Times of greater Simplicity, than these later Ages; and therefore I do not ex­pect [Page 135] they should shew me St. Peter Commanding after the manner of our Modern Popes: But if they can shew me any one single Act of Authority over the rest of the Apostles; if they can shew me St. Peter of himself, making Laws, and Orders for the good Govern­ment of the Church, or so much as presiding in the College of the Apo­stles; if they can shew me any Appeals made to him, or Contro­versies ended by him, or, among so many Controversies as happen­ed, any advice to repair to him, or command to obey him; I shall not shut my Eyes against the disco­veries. But to consider this Mat­ter a little more particularly: As soon as our Blessed Saviour was As­cended, there was an occasion gi­ven to exercise this Supremacy in chusing a new Apostle in the room of Judas, Acts 1. But we see that the [Page 136] method taken was, that the whole Multitude chose Two, and then they cast Lots which of the Two should be the Apostle. And so as to the choosing of Deacons, Acts 7. the whole Multitude chose them, and presented them, not to Peter, but to all the Apostles to be Ordained.

If we look a little further into the Acts of the Apostles to Ch. 8. We shall find the Apostles not sent by St. Peter up and down to their bu­siness as occasion required, but St. John and him sent by them to Samaria; which was not very man­nerly nor very fit had they known him to be their Sovereign.

Acts 11. we find those of the Circumcision, contending with him, and forcing him to give an account of his Actions, and that without any Ceremony, or deference proper [Page 137] for one in so high a Place; and we see he patiently submits to it, without standing upon his Prero­gative of being unaccountable, without chiding them for their Insolence, or any thing of that kind.

Acts 15. we find a solemn Meet­ing of the Apostles and Brethren at Jerusalem, where St. Peter speaks indeed, as any other Man might have done, but does not preside or determine any thing. The Appeal was to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusa­lem, not to him alone; and if any thing in the whole Meeting was done Authoritatively by any single Person, it was by St. James, for he passes Sentence, as you may see Verse 19.

If we go to the Epistles, we shall find as little evidence of his [Page 138] Authority, as we have in the History of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles.

The first Epistle is that to the Romans, not from St. Peter, but from St. Paul; where there is not the least notice taken either of St. Peter, or of the great Preroga­tives of that Church, which, one would think, could hardly be a­voided if St. Paul had known any thing of them; nay he says some things which directly contradict their Pretences, which you may see Chap. 11. He tells them there, that he speaks to them who were Gentiles, as being the Apostle of the Gentiles; and if so, St. Peter must not have had so near a relation to them, because he was the Apostle of the Jews. Then he proceeds to advise them to have a care of themselves, lest they should fall [Page 139] away, and be cut off; as you may see ver. 20, 21. Be not high-minded, but fear, for if God spared not the natural Branches, take heed, lest he also spare not thee. It's plain, that St. Paul at that time knew no­thing of the great Privileges of that Church, of its being the Mo­ther and Mistris of all Churches, of its being the Center of Church Ʋnity, and of its being Infallibly secured from Error and Apostacy.

If we go on to the Epistle to the Corinthians we shall sind there a very proper occasion to menti­on St. Peter's Authority, if he had any such as they boast of, as you may see 1 Eph. Chap. 1. Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas [or Peter] and I of Christ; Is Christ divided, or was Paul Crucified for you? &c. Those People certainly knew nothing of [Page 140] St. Peter's Supremacy, nor St. Paul neither, otherwise he would hard­ly have omitted to tell them of such an Infallible Cure for their Divisions.

In the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians we have many Ar­guments against St. Peter's preten­ded Supremacy; St. Paul tells us there that he had no Superior, that he had his Authority from none but Christ, Ch. 1.17. He compares himself with St. Peter, and says that the Ministry of the Ʋncircum­cision was committed to him as the Ministry of the Circumcision was unto Peter. Ch. 2. v. 7. He men­tions St. Peter as of the same Au­thority with James and John, when James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars, Verse the 9th. And a little further he tells us how he openly withstood Peter to [Page 141] the Face, because he was to be blam­ed. All these things might be urg­ed at large, but I content my self only tomention them. But from all together, I think, I may well con­clude, that this Promise of our Saviour did not intend St. Peter any Pow­er over the rest of the Apostles, and consequently, not any to his Suc­cessors (if he had any) over the Bishops of the Christian Church, who are Successors of the Apostles in general; tho' we do not deny, but St. Peter had a Power over the whole Church, but only as the rest of the Apostles had, whose Care, and consequently Authority was not consined to particular Churches, as it was thought fit in order to the better Government of the Church, that the Authority of Bishops should be since, but was left at large, and unconfin'd as to any certain limits either of Person, or Places.

But suppose it should be granted, that St. Peter had such Power, as they affirm he had, yet there is not one Word in Scripture about a Successor, or about the vast Privileges of the Church of Rome in this Point. And in truth, there is as little evidence in the History of the Church for many Ages, of this pretended Au­thority of the Bishop of Rome, as there is in the Scriptures.

Rome was at the time of the Plant­ing the Christian Religion, a vast City, and the Head of a very great Empire: This must of it self, give the Bishop of it a great influence in the Affairs of the Church, which was almost all within the Roman Empire; this made all sort of Com­munication with him easy, by means of the mighty refort that was made from all Parts to the [Page 143] tal City; and Greatness of his See, did in course of Time bring great Riches to it, and if we add to this, that it was honou­red by the Preaching and Mar­tyrdom of two great Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, we see plain Reasons why the Bishops of Rome were likely to make a great Figure in the Church; but as for real Authority, such as is now pretend­ed, there do not appear any foot­steps of it for several Ages.

As for Speculative Opinions, We may not perhaps have so cer­tain an account of them so long af­ter, unless of those which by some accident or other came to be Dis­puted. But Government is a Practi­cal thing, and there happens every day Occasion to exercise it, especi­ally the Government of the whole Church; and if the Pope had been [Page 144] from the beginning what he pretends to be, and what he now makes him­self, his Power could have been no more a matter of Controversy, than it could be made a Controversy whe­ther there were any Christian Church; for the same History that clears the one must at the same time clear the other.

The Old Body of History of the Christian Church is that of Eusebius, which contains an account of the Affairs of it for above 300 Years; now if the Pope were Monarch of the Church for those 300 Years, we can no more miss to see it in that History, than we can read any History of England for such a Number of Years, and be uncertain whether we had here any King or no, for so long a time: No History hardly can be conceived so faulty or imperfect, as to leave such a Mat­ter [Page 145] a Secret or uncertain; And yet I would Challenge any indifferent Person to read that History over, and to shew me but any one thing in it from which it can be probably inferred, that the Bishop of Rome was the Governour of the whole Church; whereas, were it truly so, there must have been something of it in almost every Page; Because all the business of the Church must in a manner roul upon him. He must be the Person appeal'd to in almost all Difficulties, we must have found his decrees in all the great Affaires that passed, His Decretal Epistles must have been interspersed up and down in the whole Work; his Authority must have put an end to all Schisms and Heresies, or at least their Rebellion against him must have been reckon­ed as one great part of their Crime. In a word (as I said before) the thing must have appeared as plain as that [Page 146] there was any King in England for these last 300 Years.

Next to that History, the most likely place to find his Authority, if he had any, is in the Works of St. Cyprian, which contain more of the Ancient Discipline and Go­vernment of the Church, than is to be found in any other Old Au­thor, especially, if we add fur­ther, that a great part of his Works is only Letters to, or from Bi­shops of Rome. We could not but see, in such a number of Letters, whether he wrote to his Sovereign or not; we should see it in the Titles which he gives him, in his Style, in the deference which he pays him. In short, the whole would some how or other shew that it was his Superior he was writing to, but now the contrary to this is true. He never speaks to him, or of him in his Letters to [Page 147] other People, but by the Name of Brother; he freely Censures him and his Opinions, just as he would do by any other Man, and with as little deference or respect; and he finally differed from him in a Mat­ter of great consequence, that of Re-baptizing Hereticks, and called Councils of the Clergy, and raised a great Party against him in it, and yet was never, that I have heard of, charged either with Rebellion, or Schism, or Heresy upon that ac­count; but is to this day reputed a Saint in Heaven.

To conclude this Matter, The whole Discipline of the Ancient Universal Church, plainly shews that the Government of it was an Aristocracy, especially, that strict Account that Bishops were to give to their Fellow Bishops up and down the World, of their Ordi­nation, [Page 148] and their Faith, and other Matters in order to hold Communi­on with one another, which as it is left off since the Pope's Authority came up, so the use of it must have been inconsistent with it, for it was taking the Judgment of Things and Persons into their own Hands, which must not have belonged to them, but to the Sovereign High Priest.

In a word, their forging so ma­ny Decretal Epistles for the Bishops of Rome for so many Ages, is a plain Argument that they have no true Evidences of the exercise of such Authority in the Ancient Church, as is now pretended to. Had such Authority been then exercised they needed not have been put to the forging Evidences of it; we could not easily have miss'd of as many true Decretal Epistles, as we have [Page 149] now forged ones, something or other we must at least, have heard of theirs, upon all the Emergent Controversies and Difficulties that happen'd in the Church: In short, We must have known of the Au­thority of the Popes of those Ages, by the same methods we know of the Authority of the then Emperors, by their Actions, by their Laws, by their Rescripts, by their Bulls, and by the whole Course of their Government. And therefore we must not judge of a thing of that Na­ture, by some few accidental and general Expressions in Authors, or by Compliments, which the Bishops of so great a See could not easily miss of.

The last Argument I shall make use of is this, That it is not easily to be believed, that Jesus Christ has left such an Authority in his [Page 150] Church, without leaving at least, some Rules about it; such as how, and by whom the Person who is invest­ed with it is to be Chosen, how his Au­thority is to be executed, and what are the bounds and limits of it, or whe­ther it has any bounds or no: These are Matters of great consequence, which have been the occasion of a great many Schisms, and might have been, or may still be the occasion of a great many more; Besides, that so vast an Office without any set limits, is mighty apt to degenerate in­to Tyranny, and to betray Men into great Exorbitancies, to tempt them to leave the Simplicity of the Go­spel, to Usurp upon the Rights of other People, and to affect at last, a Secular Dominion instead of a Spiritual Office.

In fact, the want of some such Rules to limit and confine his Au­thority has made great differences in [Page 151] the Church of Rome about this Mat­ter: Some say, he has a plenitude of Power; others say, that he is con­fined to the Canons of the Church; some say, that he is above a Gene­ral Council, others deny it; some say, that he has the Supreme Au­thority over all the World, not only in Spirituals, but also in Tem­porals, that he has a Power to Erect Kingdoms, to give away King­doms, to deprive Princes of their Dominions, and to take away the Obligation of Subjects to their Al­legiance; others there are, who ei­ther qualify this with distinctions, or else quite deny it; lastly, some there are who say, that he is Infal­lible, that what he solemnly deter­mines ought to be a Rule and Law to all Christians, and to be taken as the Dictate of the Holy Ghost but many there are who deny this too; besides all which, thereare [Page 152] many Disputes about his Power of granting Indulgencies, his dispensing with Oaths and Vows, and with the Laws both of God and the Church. These are Differences of great moment, both with relation to Faith and Practice, and may car­ry Men as different ways as Light and Darkness are different, or as different as Truth is from the most monstrous Heresies in the World. Thus if the Pope be not above a General Council, he may carry those into a State of Schism and Disobedience who believe he is; if he cannot dispense with Oaths and Laws, and Vows, he may car­ry those into great Sins who be­lieve he can; if he cannot Depose Princes, he may carry those into Rebellion, Perjury, Murther, and all sorts of Villanies who are led by him; and if he be not Infalli­ble, as he pretends to be, God [Page 153] knows whither he may carry those who follow him: And so on the other side, if he has all these Pre­rogatives, they are in as much dan­ger who say, that he has not.

If Christ had thought fit to ap­point a Head of his Church, I cannot imagine, but He would have given the Church some Rules about his Power, and the Obedi­ence that was due to him: And I cannot but wonder how the same Church holds Persons that are of so contrary Opinions in Matters of this consequence: Let us only con­sider that single Point of the Pope's Infallibility; I have already shewed that those who do believe it, must have a different Rule of Faith from those who do not, because his Determinations must be part of the Rule of their Faith, and con­sequently, they must have a diffe­rent [Page 154] Religion, from those who do not believe it. But that which I would insist upon at present, is this, That for a Person to affirm himself to be Infallible, and to be appointed by God for the Supreme Guide and Conductor of the Faith of Christians, so that whatsoever he shall solemnly determine must be be­lieved true without examining; I say, for a Person to affirm this of himself, supposing it be false, is downright Heresy, and that as gross and dangerous Heresy as almost any Man can fall into: Now to illu­strate this, I would only propose one thing; Suppose Henry VIII. in­stead of those other Matters in which he differed from the Church of Rome, had affirmed only this one Point; That God had made him Infallible, and appointed him to be the Guide of all Christians: Would this have made him a He­retick, [Page 155] or w [...]d it not? There is no Question, but they must say, this would have made him and all his Followers so, or if there be any worse Name by which they could call them; for if he were in their Opinion, a Heretick for pretend­ing to be the Head only of the Church of England, and that with­out Infallibility; How much more must the other have made him so? Now what is Heresy in one, must be Heresy in every body, supposing it equally false; for Heresy is not made so by difference of Persons, but by the Nature of Things. All therefore that believe the Pope not to be Infallible, must as much be­lieve this Pretence to be Heresy in him, and his followers, as they would in the Case of Henry VIII. for the Matter is the same in both, and the Pretence supposed to be equally false in both, but must be [Page 156] much more dangero [...] in the Pope, because more People [...]e like to be seduced by him. That Reason which makes those of the Roman Church who deny his Infallibility, yet not speak, or think so severely of it, as they would do of the same Pretence in another Man, is realy so far from excusing it, that it aggravates the Matter, and makes it worse and much more dangerous than it would be in any other: They do not speak out, because the Person who pretends to this Privilege, has great Authority among them, and is at the Head of their Church, whereas this is the very thing which makes such a Pretence the more pernicious, that he has great Authority even with the whole Body of that Church, and has a very great Number of them, who say, That if he determines Vertue to be Vice, and Vice to be Ver­tue; [Page 157] and the same, if he deter­mines Infidelity to be Faith, yet he must be followed. God knows how many People such a one may carry with him into Heresies, or Immoralities, or even to Hell it self.

Perhaps they think that God will take care of his Church, and will not suffer any thing of that kind to happen; but sure they have little reason to expect such a miraculous care over them, who encourage the Pope and his Fol­lowers in such a pestilent Heresy, by living in Communion with him, and owning him for the Head of their Church. But besides, how do they mean that God will take care of his Church, when he has suf­fered a Person, whom they own to be the Head of it, to fall in­to such a dangerous Heresy? [Page 158] Will God preserve him, that he shall fall into no other Heresies? How do they know that, or how can they expect it? If any thing puts a Man out of the care and protection of God, certainly such a false pretence as that, is most likely to do it; And as for those who will stick by such a Person notwithstanding they see the falseness of his pretences, they have reason to expect, that God should give them over to strong delusions, rather than take any extraordinary care of them while they are in such a way.

I have now done with what I at first proposed to speak to, And I cannot but hope that I have said enough to give you just reason to comply with the Laws of your Country in these matters. This I am sure of, that I have [Page 159] not willingly misrepresented any thing, or made use of any reason­ing which did not first convince my self; If, in this short Address, I have not answered all the difficul­ties in these matters, or if you desire satisfaction in the other points of Controversy betwixt us and your Church, I must renew my request to you that you would consult some of our Divines, or read some of those Books which have been written upon the several Subjects, which I am perswaded, can hardly fail of Convincing you, if they are read impartially. As for my self, if I find by the success of this, that any thing I can do, may help forward your Conversion, I shall be very glad to take any further pains in it; And in the mean time shall not fail to put up my [Page 160] Prayers to Almighty God on your behalf, that he would be pleased to take away all Prejudice, to open your Eyes, and bring you to the knowledge of the Truth.