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
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
Protestants examining the Scriptures now but what would have held as well against the Command of our Saviour here to the Jews unless they can shew us a positive Institution of an Infallible Guide but all the Arguments from Reason and the imperfection of our Understanding are perfectly the same in both Cases The truth is all our Saviour's Preaching did suppose this for it had been a vain thing to Preach to People who had not abilities to understand And if we go further to the Preaching of the Apostles we shall find that they endeavoured to prove the truth of what they said out of the Scriptures by which they appealed to the Understanding of their Hearers and made them proper Judges of what they said as far as their own Salvation was concerned in it We see in Acts 17.11 The Bereans were commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things the Apostles preached were so or not The Apostle St. John commands Christians to try the Spirits that is to examine the pretences that any should make to the Spirit of God which supposes that their Understanding how fallible soever was sufficient to judge in these Matters In a word the Writers and Emissaries of the Church of Rome do themselves when they don't think of it in effect confess this for when they bring Scripture and other Arguments to persuade us to come over to their Church I would ask them are we proper Judges of these things or are we not Will our Faith be a true Faith that is founded upon these Scriptures or these Reasons that you here bring If it be so then we may understand for our selves and there is no necessity in order to true Faith of an Infallible Judge but if it be not so there ought to be then an end of Disputes for it 's in vain to Dispute where it 's supposed that we cannot understand or judge and all offering of Scripture or Reason to prove the truth of their Opinions is only affront and mockery But it may be it will be said Don't we see People differ about the Interpretation of Scripture some go one way and some another and yet all are consident of their own how can we be sure that we are in the right any more than they who are as confident in what they say as we are Now this Objection is founded upon this that we cannot have certainty of what is once Disputed which is contrary to the Common Opinion of Mankind who would have done Disputing if they thought they could not be certain when once Men differed from them This does indeed overthrow all Reason and Religion Some have ventured to Dispute the Being of God and many more the Truth of the Christian Religion and yet I hope we may be very certain of the Truth of both these But I would only urge at present this one Consideration Are all the World agreed about their Infallible Judge If not how can they be certain of that But to press this Matter a little more plainly they say for instance that we can't from Scripture be certain of the Divinity of our Saviour because the Socinian's a small number of Men dispute that Matter But the same Socinians deny their Infallible Judge and therefore that must at least be as uncertain as the other And not only the Socinians but all Protestants deny it which must make it still more uncertain and not only all the Protestants but the Greek Armenian Aethiopian Churches a vast Body of Men which must still add to the uncertainty and not only all these but all that in any Age or Nation have ever differed from the Church of Rome for whoever differs from them must deny their Infallibility and consequently this must have been Disputed not only as much as any one Point but as much as all the rest together This I think is a demonstrative Answer to this whole way of Arguing and shews the manifest Absurdity of it for it makes things uncertain because they are Disputed and yet makes the most Disputed thing in all the World the Foundation of all the certainty they have I have been the longer in examining this Point of the Infallibility of your Church as being that which is the great support of all your other Errors I now proceed to speak something to the particulars I promised and first I shall begin with Transubstantiation which is the first thing Renounced in the Test The Sense of the Church of England in this Matter seems to be this That tho' Believers in the faithful and due receiving of this Holy Sacrament are made Partakers of the Benefits of the Death of Christ that is of the breaking of his Body and the shedding his Blood and so may be properly enough said to be partakers of his Body and Blood yet that which they take into their Mouths is really but Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine set apart for a holy Use to represent the breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour and therefore in a Sacramental sense may be called his Body and Blood tho' in truth and reality they are but Bread and Wine Both Sides do in some Sense own a real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but this one thing if observed will sufficiently shew the difference That Protestants say that in the devout and holy Use of this Sacrament Christ will be present with his Grace and Assistance to the Souls of good People but that the Things which appear before us which we eat and drink are not Christ but Bread and Wine Those of the Church of Rome on the other side say That the Thing which lies before them which they put into their Mouths tho' before Consecration they are Bread and Wine yet upon pronouncing those Words This is my Body and this is my Blood they lose their own Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine and become very Christ the very same Christ that was Born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered upon the Cross And therefore pay them the same Divine Honour and Worship as if God or Christ did truly and openly appear before them Now the whole ground of this Dispute lies in the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood They say that the Words ought to be understood in the plain literal Sense we say they ought to be understood as used by Christ in his Instituting a Sacrament that is appointing one thing to be a representation and a memorial of another and which because it does represent may very well be called by the Name of that Thing which is represented by it which we think to be a very natural easy way of speaking and agreeable as to that present occasion so to other terms of Speech of the same nature which had been in use among those People to whom our Saviour spoke But in particular the time in which
be contained wholly in that which is less and that not once only but as many times over as there are Points in the Bread and Wine That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self and wholly below it self within it self and without it self on the right Hand and on the left Hand and round about it self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self and lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That to be One should be to be undivided from it self and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self That a finite thing may be in all Places at once That there should be no certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know some things certainly and know nothing Corporal but by our Senses That that which is and was long ago should now begin to be That the same thing should be before and after it self That it should be possible that the same Man for Example You or I may at the same time be awake at London and not awake but asleep at Rome there run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or liedown there study or write here do nothing but dine or sup there speak here be silent that he may in one place freeze with cold in another burn with heat that he may be drunk in one place sober in another valiant in one place a coward in another a Thief in one place and honest in another that he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome a Protestant and go to Church in England that he may die in Rome and live in England or dying in both Places may go to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from Fngland That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was and yet not go to another place nor be destroyed These are some of those monstrous Contradictions which are involved in this Doctrine of Transubstantiation I shall only observe these few things more about this Matter and then conclude this Point 1. That you ought not for the avoiding of these Difficulties to content your selves to believe in general that somehow or other you don't know how this Sacrament is the Body of Christ for your Church has determined the Matter that it is the very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary and was afterward Crucified and that there remains no substance of Bread but only this Body of Christ after Consecration 2. I would observe that none of these Difficulties are taken off by considering Christ's Body as glorified for besides that if it be a Body still it must have the Properties of a Body this Sacrament was Instituted while our Saviour lived in the World and had just such a Body as other Men of the same bigness and all other qualities as to his Body the same And therefore in interpreting these Words This is my Body all the Difficlties are still the same as if he were now living or as they would be were they spoken of the Body of any other Man 3. I desire that you would consider that you may be sure we do not mis-understand nor mis-represent your Opinion because these Absurdities are what your own Divines take notice of as well as ours and do not pretend to be able to give any direct Answer to them 4. I would observe That tho' these Contradictions are so apparent and staring that no Body that hears of this Doctrine can well miss of them yet they are new and none of them ever heard of in the Church for many Hundred Years from whence we inferr that the Doctrine it self was as little heard of 5. We do not find that any Christian for many Hundred Years ever denied or disputed the truth of this Doctrine from whence we cannot but conclude that it was then unknown in the Church for it must have had strange good fortune to escape without any Contradiction when all the Articles of the Creed had been Disputed round 6. As this was not disputed or denied by any Christians so neither was it objected against the Christian Religion by any Heathen not even by Julian himself who as being an Apostate must have known all the Secrets of our Religion whereas in truth there had been Ten times more weight in this than in all the Objections together which they made use of against Christianity 7. There were several things in the Primitive Church inconsistent with the belief of this Doctrine in particular that of mixing Water with the Wine the Water to represent the People as the Wine represented the Blood of Christ of which St. Cyprian gives us a full Account Vid. Cypr. Epist 63. 8. I would observe That the Church of Rome can assign no peculiar necessity or usefulness of this Sacrament above others that should give a probable Reason of the mighty difference betwixt this and others and of such a strange wonderful Dispensation as the eating our Blessed Saviour himself Nay with them both Baplism and Confession are esteemed much more necessary and the omission of them more dangerous than the omission of this Sacrament 9. To conclude this whole Matter I think I have sufficiently shewed that this Doctrine has no foundation in Scripture I would have considered at large the Sense of the Primitive Church in it and I do not question but to have been able very clearly to make out that it was a Doctrine quite unknown to the Church of God for many Ages but that was not consistent with the Brevity I am at present forced to use I would therefore only observe this one thing That we ought not to conclude this to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers only from some accidental or general Expressions which they sometimes make use of It 's plain that none of them designedly treat of this Matter or explain it to us none of them recite it among the Articles of their Faith none of them take any notice of the difficulties of it no Christians appear to have been shocked at this Doctrine and no Heathens to have Objected it all which could hardly have been avoided had this been the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church And as for General Expressions the calling what they received the Body and Blood of Christ that could not be avoided the Nature of the thing requiring them even according to our Opinion of this Matter And we see that notwithstanding we have made such express Declarations against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and that by reason of this Controversy we express our selves more cautiously than we may suppose the Fathers would do before any Controversy was moved ved about it yet some general Expressions of our own Divines are often turned against us by those of the Church of Rome and there is no question but were the Authors of them as Old as the
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