+

persons and estates of the clergy free from civil magistrates; that the reformed Church is heretical, for separating from the idolatrous Church of Rome, which they pretend to be the only true one; communión in one kind, contrary to the express words of Scripture," Let a ma examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup," says the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 28. as also to the practice of the primi tive Church; the doctrine of purgatory, tradition, seven sacraments, beads, nunneries, fish-days, disciplines, pilgrimages, indulgences, works of supererogation, sanctification by our own merits, and many more; I shall therefore only make a few remarks on the articles of the infalli bility of the Pope, worship of creatures, such as are saints, images, and reliques,' and lastly, upon the monster Transubstantiation.

The infallibility of the Pope, although the most absurd thing in nature, yet the most useful to keep up the grandeur of the Roman Pontiff, is an article of the Romish religion, and vigorously maintained by their divines; among other passages of Holy Scripture, which they drag to prove this doctrine, they make great use of these words, which our Saviour said to St. Peter,

And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, nd upon this rock I will build my Church, nd the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" which words, they pretend, prove that Christ our Lord built his Church upon St. Peter, and consequently an the Pope his successor; and yet more, that as St. Peter could not err, neither can the Pope, in matters of religion; so that whatever he says must be true.

In answer to all this, I might well say, for the present, that many of the Popes were not only notorious for wickedness, bur even erred in point of doctrine, which I could easily prove from their own writers and ecclesiastial History, yet I shall examine the above passage; for the better understanding of which I must take notice, that at the 15th verse of that chapter, our Saviour puts this question to his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God; and Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven, and I say unto thee, &c." Now if we only compare these texts of Scripture together, we shal! find that Christ did not mean Peter by the word

Rock, but the faith of which he a fi before made a glorious profession, whi revelation he had from the Father in H ven, and not from flesh and blood, as o blessed Saviour positively declares.

The word Rock, in Scripture, is in place made use of to signify the Apost Peter, but it is metaphorically applie several times to denote Christ; if then i the text now under consideration, it may be applied, according to the cor.nexion of the passage, to our Lord and Saviour, why not rather than to St. Peter, who could not be either the rock or foundation of the Church, according to St. Paul, who expressly says; "other foundation can ne man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 11.

But in supposition that Christ built his Church upon St. Peter, as our adversaries must have it, I demand what is all this to the Pope? Is the Pope nearer related to St. Peter than any other Bishop upon earth? They tell us that the Pope is St. Peter's successor, because St Peter was Bishop of Rome, and died there; but suppose he was, he likewise was Bishop of Antioch, and lived there some years. It is likewise certain, that St. Peter appointed neither the one nor the other of these Bishops for

kis successor, nor have I ever heard of any Pope to have done the like; is it not there. fore ridiculous for the one to pretend to it more than the other?

If all men were required to believe this infallibility, under pain of eternal damnation, as Pope Pius declares in his new profession of faith, it is actually surprising such an essential doctrine is no where in Scripture mentioned, not even so much as a mere intimation of any such supremacy is to be found in all scripture, or in any of the Fathers of the Church, for the space of 600 years, to the time of Gregory the Great, who declared that no man ought to be looked upon as universal Bishop of = the Christian Church.

We have not even proof sufficient to ground an article of faith upon, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; as St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, written at the time when St. Peter was their Bishop, as is pretended, does not make mention of him, nor even take the least notice of that great privilege, Supremacy, which on account of him, belonged to that Church, although be salutes above twenty persons by their proper names.

It is also surprising, that if St. Peter and

his successors, the Roman Bishops, for the first four centuries, had such power as our modern Popes pretend to, that they never openly exercised it in dispensing with oaths the most solemn vows, degrees of affinity and consanguinity in marriage; as also, in deposing Kings and Princes, and absolving subjects from their allegiance, and giving their kingdoms to others; and yet, what is more strange, to bestow the empires and kingdoms of the Indies, upon the kings of Spain and Portugal, as a reward for their servic in murdering the poor savage inhabitants, because they were not of the Romish religion.

It is not to my purpose, to enter into a subtile discussion of every matter they bring to support this infallibility; as I was ever of opinion, that fair conclusions, unavoidably following from plain matters of fact, were of more service to the cause of truth, than the most elaborate explanations of obscure passages.

In the 11th chapter of the Acts, we find that some of the disciples contended with Peter for going in unto, and eating with men uncircumcised: He does not wrap himself up in the plenitude of his power and knowledge; but recounts the whole