or that a Visible Governour or Head of the Vniversal Church is necessary or practicable On the contrary our Saviour assures us His Kingdom is not of this World and exhorted his Followers not to strive for Preheminence as Worldlings do And Luk. IX 46. He rebuked their Reasonings who should be greatest Sect 55. Secondly Let him prove that S. Peter was the Vicar or Pope so appointed by our Saviour On the contrary the Commission was to all the Apostles John XX. 23. He said unto THEM Whosoever Sins YE remit they are remitted unto them c. Matth. XVIII 18. Whatsoever YE shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven Matth. XXVIII 19. Go YE therefore and teach all Nations And S. Paul tells us That to HIM was committed the Care of ALL THE CHVRCHES That HE was not behind the very Chiefest Apostles and HE withstood Peter to his Face because he was to be blamed and I think that the single Text in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians Chap. II. vers 9. is of it self sufficient to confute this pretended Supremacy It runs thus And when James Cephas that is Peter and John who seemed to be Pillars perceived the Grace that was given to me Paul they gave to me Paul and Barnabas the right Hand of Fellowship that we should go unto the Heathen Romans Grecians c. and they unto the Circumcision the Jews Sect 56. Thirdly Let him prove that Peter's Power whatever it were was to go in Succession On the contrary Peter's Authority was Personal as his Gifts and Graces for the Exercise of it were He was filled with the Holy Ghost and so was Qualified to be Christ's Vicar No body will say so of those many Atheists Hereticks Blasphemers Sodomites and Murtherers that have pretended to be his Successors Sect 57. If the Supremacy was to survive Peter why should it not descend to St. John the Beloved Apostle who out-lived Peter many years rather than to the Bishop of Rome What Title has that Bishop to it Did our Saviour order it so Or who else did Sect 58. Let your Priest shew that Peter was Bishop of Rome and who made him so On the contrary being an Apostle he could not properly be a Bishop of any particular See any more than the King can be said to be Governour of Limrick Besides He was the Apostle of the Circumcision or of the Jews and so could not be Bishop of Rome nor can you prove he was there at all At least the Popish Tradition of his being there 25 years is certainly False nor have you more than a doubtful Historical Testimony of his being ever at Rome which is not sufficient for such an Important Point upon which the whole of Popery does depend and to which you require a Divine Infallible Faith Sect 59. Besides Your Learned Men do not yet agree Whether Peter alone was Bishop of Rome or Peter and Paul together or who were the Immediate Successors to Peter so Uncertain is their History or Tradition in this matter and if you add your received Doctrine That want of Intention in the Priest or Bishop makes a Nullity in the Sacrament of Order you cannot be sure that Innocent XII is a Bishop at all much less Successor to St. Peter Sect 60. Thus is the Divine and Infallible Certainty you boast to have of your Religion as distinct from ours built on a Supremacy which you see is supported by very Improbable if not False Assertions But 't is good enough for you who are not suffered to Examine the Grounds and Reasons of your Faith but take your Religion upon Trust and venture your Salvation upon the Opinion of others whose Business it is to make a hand of you and who therefore keep you in the Dark that they may have the better Opportunity to pick your Pockets Sect. 61. But that which demonstrates Popery to be a Politick Contrivance is That after such confident Preâ—ences to Supremacy and Infallibility they are not agreed where it resides Their Arguments and Proofs tend to make the Goverment of the Church Monarchical in the Person of the Pope whom they pretend to be the Vicar of Iesus Christ which infers Infallibility without which he were a dangerous Center of Vnity But wisely knowing that many of the Popes had but a very bad Faith if one might judge it by their Works and that they were so Fallible and Foolish to contradict one another and sometimes the Truth even Ex Cathedra they have dexterously turn'd about and Debased the Government of the Church into a Republick by subjecting the Pope to a General Council and making his Holiness Vicar of the Church instead of Vicar of Christ and by placing Infallibility in the Pope and Council Sect 62. Nor are they of One Opinion in this Main Point the Diocess of Rome and the Gallican Church have very different Notions of this matter which has been defined both ways in their General Councils which makes them shy of Declaring their Opinion in this knotty Case And if you ask your Priest he will hardly give you a plain Answer to it For first There has been no General Council since the Apostles time nor can be unless the Christian World were under one Emperour or some other means could be found to Summon All Nations and and to have their Representatives at the Assembly Those which are reputed General Councils are improperly called so not that the Whole Church was there even by Representation but because their Decrees being Orthodox were Generally Received What then shall we say to the Council of Trent where only some of the Pope's Servants and a very few Prelates from three or four Nations Decreed New Articles of Faith Is it not absurd to call it a General Council when England Ireland Scotland Denmark Sweden Muscovy most part of Germany and the Low-Countreys the Greek and Armeman Churches and many others neither had a Representative there nor could safely send one Sect 63. But secondly They are shy of fixing the Infallibility in Pope and Council because it will be enough to confound that Position to shew That a Pope and Council have Erred or that they have Contradicted one another for in that Case one must be in the wrong Sect 64. And I conceive your Loyalty will not suffer you to deny that Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Lateran Erred when they Decreed That Princes who did not Purge their Kingdoms of Heresie should be Deposed for this gives the Pope Power over Princes in Temporals which surely you will not approve of thô he put it in Practice very smartly against our King John and the Emperor Otho the Fourth Sect 65. Certainly Pope Liberius and the Council of Sirmium Err'd when they decreed Arrianism for the Council of Nice has decreed and all Christians I hope believe the contrary I suppose the Pope and Council of Lateran Erred in advancing the Pope above the Council if not the Popes and General Councils of
Constance and Basil Erred in putting the Council above the Pope and so did the French Church Anno 1682. Sect 66. Without doubt either the Second Nicene Council Erred in decreeing the Worship of Images or the General Councils of Constantinople and Francfort at which last there were 300 Prelates and the Popes Legates Erred in Decreeing the contrary Surely Pope Vigilius Erred in Confirming the Fifth General Council or else he Err'd afterward in Condemning it and so did Pope Adrian and the Sixth General Council when they defined that Marriage was Disolv'd by Heresie or else the Council of Trent Err'd in Defining the contrary Sect 67. But 't is not my Business to Examine which was in the Wrong One of them was since they Decreed contrary to each other and that is enough to prove That a Pope and General Council are not Infallible for they have actually Err'd and no Argument like matter of Fact And sure the French are of this Opinion else why did they refuse to receive the Council of Trent Nay Our Forefathers were of this Opinion For the Cannons of General Councils were not of Force in England but such as the Government were pleased to Receive and thereby give them the Sanction of Laws Sect 68. But there is yet a matter more Artificial to be considered and that is that some General Councils are in part Approved and in part Reprobated As if they should say The Council was assisted part of the way and then left in the lurch If they think such a General Council was not Divinely Inspir'd how dare they impose any of its Decrees on the Church as matter of Faith Divinely Reveal'd If the Council was Divinely Inspir'd why do they Reprobate or Reject any of its Decrees Is not this plainly to make use of what serves their purpose and to discountenance how Unjustly soever every thing that makes against their Vsurpations Sect 69. But 't is yet worse if the Canons of any Council have been Rejected by one Pope and afterwards approved by another For this were To hold thè faith in respect of Times as well as Persons and to Insinuate that the same Doctrine that is false to day may be True to Morrow and yet 't is certain that 102 Canons of The Council of Trullo or Constantinople were Rejected by Pope Sergius 1. And afterwards Many of them and particularly the 82d Canon were Received by Pope Adrian 1. and the 7th Synod and now allowed by the Romish Church Sect. 70. But I promis'd to shew That the Articles wherein you differ from us are either False or New or Both I shall endeavour to perform it as fully as my designed Brevity will permit An◠first for Transubstantiation it was not thought o◠in the Primitive Times till the Raptures and Florid Expressions of some of the Fathers gave Handle to succeeding Ages to advance this Monstrous Doctrine which was made an Article o◠Faith in the Council of Lateran Anno. 1215. An◠'t is upon the same score that some have had th◠Confidence to quote even Protestant Doctors fo◠this Tenent who expresly wrote against it an◠could not suspect that any Body would be so Vnfair to raise Consequences from loose and Metaphorical Expressions directly contrary to the Position they asserted Sect 71. 'T is needless to say 't is False because your Senses demonstrate it to be so It involves a thousand Contradictions and consequently s◠many Lyes 'T is hard to think you ca◠believe it because your Senses contradict wha◠you pretend to believe Will any Man say tha◠our Blessed Saviour when he Instituted this Sacrament did eat Himself or put his Whole Body into his Mouth The Apostles saw he did not an◠therefore could not believe he did One might as well say that the House may run out at the Windows or as you do That S Denis being Beheaded carried his Head in his Hands as to say Tha◠our Saviour who was a Man like us in every thing but Sin could eat Himself or be devour'd by the Apostles whilst he sat well and sound and Entire among them at the Table Sect 72. In short The End of Arguments is to drive your Opponent to an Absurdity but he that believes Transubstantiation admits of all Absurdities in the World so that there is no Arguing with him He is Resolute in adhering to the Sentiments of the Priest which he calls the Church right or wrong and if he tells you that Black is White that Vertue is Vice or as Pope Zachary did the Bishop of Saltsburg that there are no Antipodes 't is to no purpse to offer Reason or Demonstration to the contrary Sect 73 So that 't is not Faith but Negligence Fear or Interest that makes Men swallow these Impious Contradictions That a Man six foot high is contain'd in a Wafer an Inch broad and may be devour'd by a little Mouse at one Meal That what you know and see to be Bread should be really and corporally Flesh and Bones That the same Man should Corporally and Individually be in Ten Thousand Places at once without Circumscription which is in effect to deny the Humanity of Christ Sect 74. And all this without any Ground or Necessity For the same IESVS that said This is my Body said he was a Vine a Door c. and that the Cup was his Blood But because common Reason obliges us to take words in a Metaphorical sense when there is plain Absurdity and Contradiction in the Literal Expression therefore no Man was ever so ridiculous as to think that our Saviour was a Vine or a Door literally and really and yet the Authority is as express and as strong as it is for a Bit of Bread to be his Body Sect 75. To conclude this Point There is no Comparison between the Evidence of our Senses and of our Reason The former Give more Certainty and are less Subject to Delusion Fallacy or Mistake and therefore should Govern the latter when both are Inconsistent And since nothing can reach the Vnderstanding but by the Sences How can one form and believe any Conception of a thing different from the Sence he has of it It follows hence that thô one may be perswaded by Argument or Authority to believe Mysteries above his Capacity and which he does not Understand or Comprehend when he knows nothing to the contrary yet 't is impossible that a Man can believe any thing contrary to his Knowledge and to what his Senses perceive 'T is probable an Ignorant fellow may be perswaded that a Clock can Tell the Hour of the Day tho' he cannot conceive how an Inanimate Thing should be capable of so doing but the best Sophister in the World Would never perswade that Man how Ignorant soever that the Clock is a Horse or that a Bit of Bread is a Man because he sees and knows the contrary Sect 76. In like manner when the Priest has said all he can for Transubstantiation what does he more than vye
the Statutes of Provisors and Premunire manifested that they were not such Bigots to the Papacy as you are They Enacted the Oath of Supremacy and took it and generally went to Church and were called Church-Papists until the Prospect of some hopeful Rebellion in favour of Rome made them Recusants Sect 110. But what if your Forefathers wer Papists would you therefore Prefer your Extraction before the Truth Or were not their Ancestors Heathens and as it would be ill in your Forefathers to remain Heathens because their Ancestors were so it is as ill in you to remain in Error Ignorance and Superstition because your Forefathers were in that condition In short This was the Argument of the Iews against their Conversion if it did sound Ill in their Mouths 't will not sound Well in yours Sect 111. As to the Sixth That there is but One Faith and One Church 't is true but that is the Christian Faith and Christian Church and tho' the several sorts of Christians as Papists Protestants Greeks Armenians c. may be said to be of different Communions Parties or Sects yet they are all Parts of the Catholcik Church and are all of that One Christian Church faith and Religion mention'd in the Gospel and therefore the Baptism of each of these Churches is allowed by the rest and the Papists dare not Re-baptize those that were Christned by Protestants which proves that they admit the Protestant to be a True Christian Church And they know well enough That difference in Opinion does not always make one of a different Religion else the Fathers were not Catholicks for there were very few of them but differ'd in some Point or other many of them were Millienaries and some had Notions more Hetrodox Nay Separate Communions do many times rather infer several Factions than different Religions as appears between the Episcoparians Presbyterians and Independants whose Creed is the same and consequently their Religion So that it is a Palpable Artifice to apply those Texts of the Gospel relating to One Church One Faith c. to any Particular Sect Party Faction or Communion within the Catholick or Christian Church Sect 112. It must be understood that the word Catholick signifies Vniversal and so 't is in the Apostles Creed in French L' Esglise Universelle The Universal Church which is what I said before The Christian Church throughout the World Now with what Front can the Particular Church of Rome call it self The Vniversal Church Certainly it would never have past if the People had not been blinded with the Term Catholick which they thought signified no more than Orthodox But say the Papists We do not mean the Particular Diocess of Rome only but also all other parts of the World that are in Communion with her and this we call The Vniversal Church But this won't mend the Blunder because all those Churches in Communion with Rome do make but a part much greater indeed than before of the Vniversal Church whilst there are any other Christian Churches out of its Communion For the Vniversal Church must comprehend All Assemblies of Christians over all the World So that if there were 1000 Christian Churches or Congregations in the World and 900 of them vvere of the Popish Communion as one Third of them are not yet vvere not she the Catholick or Vniversal Church properly speaking or in any other sense but as Professing the Faith and Doctrine vvhich our Saviour Published to the Universal World And it is the Point in Question vvhether she does that or no. And 't is to be noted that the vvord Catholick is inserted in the Creed in opposition to Iudaism vvhich vvas in effect appropriated to a Few vvhereas the Christian Religion is Catholick and Universally offered to The Whole World and all the Nations thereof Sect 113. To the Seventh I ansvver That Popery is not the safer Religion but on the contrary is by reason of its Idolatry and Superstition the most dangerous of all Christian Religions 'T is true We dare not Limit the Infinite Mercy of God nor determine hovv far Invincible Ignorance may excuse Idolaters Papists or even Turks and Heathens Does it follovv that any Man should choose to be an Idolater or a Papist or a Turk rather then to be a Good Christian because this last is Modest and vvill not Pronounce any Man Damn'd without warrant and the former are Rash and Uncharitable in Censures they have no Ground for Suppose two Ships Sayling together one Stanch and the other Leaky the Crew of the latter swear the stanch Vessel will Perish the others perceive no danger to themselves but think 't is 1000 to one if the Leaky Vessel reaches the Shore Yet allow that 't is possible she may Which of these two would a Wise Man choose to go in or has he any thing to do but to examine which is the Leaky Vessel and which is the Stanch one Moreover if We Examine this Popular Argument by like cases that have happened in the Church we shall find it but a Pittiful piece of Sophistry The Donatists denyed the Baptism of the Catholicks whilst the Church allowed the Baptism of the Donatists yet would not S. Augustin be Re-baptiz'd St. Paul owns a Possibility of Salvation to the Iudaizing Christians who built with Straw and Stubble on Foundations of Christianity Which They denyed to The Orthodox So that if this Popish Argument were Good All the Orthodox should have Iudaiz'd since both sides Allowed They might be saved But St. Paul and the Primitive Christians were wiser then to leave a certain way of Salvation for a meer Possibility of being Saved Besides The Protestant Religion is the safer because it Enjoyns you to believe no more then you do already and only Obliges you to Reject some New Whimsies which may safely be omitted whether the Doctrine be true or false for Example tho' the Doctrine of Merit were True Yet 't is more safe to depend upon the Merits of Our Saviour than upon our Own If there be a Purgatory Yet 't is safer to make our Calling and Election sure by Piety and Repentance in this Life then to Rely upon future Purgations If the Saints do hear yet 't is more Safe and Profitable to make our Prayers and Addresses to God And even if Transubstantiation it self were True Yet it would be safe to approach the Altar with that Preparation and Reverence our Church enjoyns but if it be not True 't is very Unsafe and Plain Idolatry to Adore corruptible Bread for the Ever living and Incorruptible GOD. Sect 114. And as to the Eighth and last Objection I Answer That nothing is more Ingenuous and Praise-worthy than to Confess and Forsake ones Errors And nothing more Dishonourable than to be Obstinate in a Bad Cause If it had been a Principle that were Justifiable That one never ought to change ones Sentiment our Saviours Preaching had been in vain since there could be neither Conversion nor Reformation