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
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
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
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