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 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 Vncircumcision 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and their Faith and other Matters in
Opinion of the Mercy of God to invincible Ignorance be true this is Comfort to us supposing we are mistaken as it is 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 whose soever sins ye retain they are retained And as for the Expression Vpon 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 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 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 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 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 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 Vnity 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
this last which deprives your Children of their Inheritance if they will not renounce their Religion 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 Vnity 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 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 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 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 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 Vniversal 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Chilligworth p. 165. That there should be Accidents without a Subject that is That there should be length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad thickness and nothing thick whiteness and nothing white roundness and nothing round weight and nothing heavy sweetness and nothing sweet moisture and nothing moist fluidness and nothing flowing many actions and no agent many passions and no patient that is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of that Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same Action be turned into Christ and yet that Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have it's just dimensions and just distance of it's Parts one from another and at the same time should not have it but all its Parts together in the felf-same Point That the Body of Christ which is much greater should
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 or wâ—…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 much more dangeroâ—… in the Pope because more People â—…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 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 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 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 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 FINIS