RELIGIO LAICI, OR A Layman's Faith, Touching the SUPREME HEAD AND INFALLIBLE GUIDE OF THE CHURCH. In Two Letters to a Friend in the Country.  
By J. R. A Convert of Mr. Bays.  

Licenced  
June the 1st. 1688.   
LONDON, Printed for John Newton, at three Pigeons over against the Inner-Tempe Gate in Fleetstreet. 1688.   

THE AUTHOR TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
A Little before the late King (of ever Blessed Memory) died, a Poem was Published called Religio Laici, etc. and not long after another by the same Author called the Hind and Panther: Which Pieces (though as opposite to one another as Light and Darkness) fell into an intimate Friends hand of mine, who knowing me a great Admirer of that Author's Poems, writ to me to desire my Judgement, touching the Infallibility of his Mother Hind, which was the occasion of the following Letters, which indeed has been long since writ; and the Reasons why they were not Published before are two: The first is the same which a late Reverend Author gave in his Reasons for taking away the Test (viz.) They were designed for a private use: The second was my fear (through a knowledge of my own Inability) of a good Cause suffering by the weakness of its Advocate; but however the Importunity of my Worthy Friend, to whom I writ, did at last prevail with me to send them thus (as we all came) Unpollished into the World. And as you have found them (without Prejudice if possible) read them, and if you meet with any thing that makes amends for the pains I have my End, if not I am sure you miss Yours.  
J. R.   

THE FIRST LETTER.  
SIR,  
THE many and never to be forgotten Favours I have received commands a ready Compliance to your Request, of giving you my Opinion touching the Doctrine of Infallibility, so universally received and believed in the Church of Rome, though at the same time they differ amongst themselves where to fix this Infallible Guide; some are for placing it in a General Council, others in his Holiness and Council together, and a third sort in the defusive Church, and a fourth in the Person of the Pope only, he being St. Peter's Successor, to whom our Saviour gave (as they say) the power of the Keys, etc. But however though they differ in the Manner, yet they do all agree in the Matter, that such a Convenient Doctrine should belong to their Church; and truly I cannot blame them for it, for it is indeed the only Rock and Foundation on which all their other Rubbish and Fopperies are built; and the Removal of it would be like Sampson's pulling down the Pillars or main Prop, so that consequently the whole Fabric would fall to to the Ground: But this being a Herculean work more proper for the famed Heroes of our Age (viz.) Men of great Parts and Letters, I had not so much as attempted it, but only, Sir, in obedience to your Command, in doing which 'tis possible I may put a helping hand toward the removal of some trash and trumpery out of the way, whereby others of my own mean Rank and Capacity may the better discern the weakness of this Babel Foundation, which has made such a Confusion in the Christian World. And amongst all the late Learned Pieces in Vindication of this Sovereign Antidote (viz.) Infallibility (for if swallowed, it would without doubt exspel the Poison of all the other Pestilential Doctrines of that Church;) none has made a greater noise in the World than the last, though least unlearned Piece of the most famous cellebrated Author Mr. Bays (the new Adopted Champion of the Roman Catholic Cause) by the Name and Title of the Hind and Panther, writ in the true Dialect and Language of the Beast J. D. in which he proves the necessity of an Unerring Guide, as plain as a Pikestaff (or rather as Demonstrable as Transubstantiation is made out, in a late Reverend Authors Reasons for taking away the Test). Now for an Unlettered Layman to engage with this Mighty Samson of an Author, is as rash an Undertaking as little David's fight with Great Goliath without Armour.  
But we read (Ecclesiastes the 9th. and 11th.) The Race is not always to the swift nor the Battle to the strong; therefore in hopes of being assisted by him whose Cause it is (namely the Lord of Hosts) through whom David not only fought, but overcame the Champion of the Philistines, I enter the Field, and if I perish I perish; however the attempt of great things is Honourable. And the Method I shall take to engage this Potent Adversary, shall be first to fight him with his own Weapons, and discharge his own Artillery upon him, viz. his own Arguments, when he was (possible) of another Opinion (I had almost said Religion, but I am Inclinable to believe he never had any.) Secondly, I shall examine those Places of Scripture which the Papists do most insist upon for the Proof of their Infallible Doctrine, etc. but I will begin with the first, and Arm myself with Mr. Bays own Armour of Proof that he has formerly engaged with, against the Asserters of this Doctrine, in a Poem of his called Religio Laici: In the Preface of which he has (Page the 4th.) these words, viz. For having laid down as a Foundation, that the Scripture is a Rule; that in all things needful to Salvation, it is clear, sufficient, and ordained by God Almighty for that purpose, I have left myself no right to Interpret obscure Places, because whatsoever is obscure is concluded not necessary to be known: On which, as a Rock, I shall (being of the same Opinion) Erect and build my Faith; and that it may the better hold out a Siege against the mighty Host of Wild Beasts, Commanded by their Infallible Mother Hind, I will fortify it with such strong murdering Morter-peices, (of his own, etc.) that I'll defy all his Bears and Boars, his Woolves and Tigers, his Foxes and Asses, and Lions, etc. to demolish and pull it down. And the first is the Case which he puts between a Socinian and them of his own Church; what that was then, you will best understand from his own Arguments, which are (I think) as strong, and he as much Inspired when he writ them, as when he writ the (Immortal Milk white) Hind and Panther; but be your own Judge Religio Laici, Page the 20. 
We hold and prove from Scripture plain  
That Christ is God, the bold Socinian  
From the same Scripture urges he's but Man.  
Now what Appeal can end the Important suit,  
Both parts talk loudly, but the Rule is mute;  
Shall I speak plain, and in a Nation free,  
Assume an honest Layman's Liberty?  (which I hope is as little a fault now, by Virtue of his Majesty's Gracious Declaration, as it was when Bays did it.)  
I think (According to my little Skill,  
But to my own Mother Church submitting still)  
That many have been saved, and many may,  
That never heard this question brought in play.  
The Unlettered Christian, that believes in gross,  
Plods on to Heaven and ne'er is at a loss;  
For the straight Gate would be made straighter yet,  
Were none admitted there but Men of Wit.  
(And Page the 22, 23, and 24.)  
The partial Papist would infer from hence,  
Their Church in last resort should judge the Sense:  
But first they would assume with wondrous Art,  
Themselves, to be the whole, who are but part  
Of that vast Frame the Church, but grant they were  
The Handers down, would they from thence infer  
A right to Interpret? or would they alone,  
Who brought the Present, claim it for their own?  
The Book's a common Largesse to Mankind,  
Not more for them than every Man designed.  
The welcome news is in the Letter found,  
The Carrier's not Commissioned to expound;  
It speaks itself, and what it does contain,  
In all things needful to be known is plain.  
In times o'er grown with Rust and Ignorance,  
A gainful Trade their Clergy did advance,  
When want of Learning made the Layman low,  
And none but Priest was Authorised to know;  
When what small knowledge was, in them did dwell,  
And he a God that could but read or spell;  
Then Mother Church did mightily prevail,  
She parcell'd out the Bible by Retail:  
But still Expounded what she sold or gave,  
To keep it in her power to damn or save.  
Scripture was scarce, and as the Market went,  
Poor Laymen took Salvation on content,  
As needy Men takes Money: good or bad  
God's word they had not, but the Priests they had.  
Yet what ere false Conveyances they made,  
The Lawyer still was certain to be paid.  
In those dark Times they learned their knack so well,  
That by long use they grew Infallible.  
A very short but fair and full account how and by what Methods (if they will believe their Champion Bays) they arrived to be the Infallible Church; but he goes on.  
At last a knowing age began to 'nquire  
Whether they the Book, or that did them Inspire;  
And making narrower search, they found, though late,  
That what they thought the Priects was their Estate;  
Taught by the will, produced the written Word,  
How long they had been Cheated on Record;  
Then every Man who saw the Title fair,  
Claims a Child's Part, and puts in for a share;  
Consulting soberly their private good,  
So saved themselves as cheap as  they could.  
That is to say Good buy Mr. Infallible Indulgences, they did not care to be cheated any longer with such a chargeable sort of Doctrine: And now I'll appeal to all unprejudiced Persons, whether Mr. Bays has proved the Infallibility of the Church of Rome in his Fable of the Hind and Panther, better than he has the contrary in his (much better Poem) Religio Laici; but it may be objected he was of another Judgement then, which is easily granted, and that (possible) the same Reasons that prevailed with him to alter it now, might oblige him not to part with it before; for indeed Solomon (which I presume was as Wise a Man as Mr. Bays) says There is a time for all things; and though Mr. Bays has (for some Reasons best known to himself) changed his Opinion, in grace of God his Religion may be still the same it was when he writ his Religio Laici, in the late King's time; nay, for aught any body knows, it may be still the same it was in his great Patron Cromwel's days, for they two did much alike admire Priests, for one made them (like Jerehoam) of the meanest of the People, and Mr. Bays made them to be all alike Cheats and Impostors; for his only Celebrated Poem of Absolom and Achitophel (which changed his Principles from Wigism to Toryism, he gins with his never failing kindness to the Priests (Page 1. line 1.)  In Pious times  Priest-Craft did begin, etc. 
So by a Penny we know how a Shilling is made; for by Priest-Craft he makes no distinction, but takes them all in from Dan to Bersheba, as if no Religion could be good where a Priest was concerned, and he gives you partly a Reason for it in the same Poem, and what it was that put 
— The Priesthood in a flame,  
For Priests of all Religions are the same.   
Which compared with his Priest-craft in the first Line of that Poem, is as much as to say they are all a company of Crafty K— s, which is a Note beyond Ela, and possible Mr. Bays might hug himself in that copious Thought; for by Priests of all Religion's Infallibility itself is included, which is very bold indeed; but possible he may think 'tis not so bold as brave, because it shows a generous Temper, and that he was not partial in his Estimation of the Priests, etc.  
And to let us see he was not in jest, he has (to his Eternal Praise) drawn the Picture of them all in one Piece; that I question whether the famed Apelle's Picture of Venus (which 'tis said was Seven years a doing) was more nice and lively Painted than Bays Plump Spanish, (and most Catholic Friar) for any body that vews that Piece may very easily guests at his design, of haling in by Head and Shoulders that unnecessary Character, to complete his double discovery, etc. Well, Mr. Bays, though you say in the Preface to your Medal, Signpost Painting will serve to remember a Friend by, yet I must tell you, you have neither spared cost nor pains, but have been extravagantly lavish in Painting your (beloved) Priests; but I presume the Reason was your Charity to your poor Brethren the Laity, that they might beware of having any thing to do with them, and that possible might induce you to publish your own Creed in 82, giving it the Title of the Layman's Faith, in which you insinuate the unreasonableness of pinning our Faith upon the Priest's Sleeves; and truly as to that you have made an absolute Convert of me, for I am much of your mind; for these Priests have, and still do make Bloody work amongst us, by endeavouring to impose upon our Understandings; yet I must needs confess I am not altogether of your Judgement, for I am willing to believe there are Priests of some Religions that are very honest and have no ill designs: But your Religio Laici has made me almost of your Persuasion; and I am very apt to believe that Poem has gained you more Proselytes than your Hind and Panther; for it is not a little diverting to see how you have their mauled and worried (beyond any English Mastiff at the Bear-garden) the poor Pope and his Bulls; which puts me in mind of what you said in your Medal upon another occasion, which with a little variation will serve here, 
The Man who laughed but once to see an Ass  
Mumbling, to make the Cross-graind Thistle pass,  
Might laugh again to see the Papist chaw  
The Prickles of unpallatable Law.  And I am apt to believe were that Philosopher alive, he would as readily laugh to see Persons swallow so greedily some things now, which but a little while ago none but Asses would venture so much as to chaw them, by reason of their pricking and choking quality. But to give the Devil his due, I must needs own Mr. Bays has a most powerful and luxurious hand at satire, and may challenge all Christendom to match him; for indeed I never in my slender Province met with any that was to compare with him, unless that unknown (but supposed) worthy Author, that writ to him upon his (at last) turning Roman Catholic (for Bays like the Vicar of Bray, in Henry the 8th. Edward the 6th. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth's days, was resolved to keep his Place) and the quoting an Author to the purpose, is the same thing (the Learned say) as if it was his own; and that will I hope excuse my putting them down here.  
Thou Mercenary Runagade, thou Slave,  
Thou ever Changing, still to be a Knave:  
What Sect, what Error wilt thou next disgrace?  
Thou art so lude, so scandil●●sly Base,  
That Antichristian Popery may be  
Ashamed of such a Proselyte as thee.  
Not all thy Rancour or Felonious spite,  
Which animates thy lumpish Soul to write,  
Can ha' contrived a satire more severe,  
Or more disgrace the Cause thou wouldst prefer?  
Yet in thy favour this must be confessed  
It suits with thy Poetic Genius best;  
There thou————  
To Truth's disused master entertain  
Thyself with Stories more fanciful and vain  
Then  thy Poetry could ever fain;  
Or sing the Lives of thy own fellow Saints,  
'Tis a large Field and thy assistance wants;  
Thence Copy out new Operas for the Stage,  
And with their Miracles direct the Age.  
Such is thy Faith, if Faith thou hast indeed,  
For well we may suspect the Poet's Creed;  
Rebel to God, Blasphemer o' thy King,  
Ah, tell whence could this strange Compliance spring:  
So mayst thou prove to thy new Gods, as true  
As thy old Friend the Devil has been to you;  
Yet Conscience and Religion's your pretence,  
But Food and Drink the Methologick Sense.  
Ah, how persuasive is the want of Bread,  
Not Reasons from strong Box more strongly plead:  
A Convert thou, 'tis past all believing,  
'Tis a damned scandal of thy Foes contriving;  
A Jest of that malicious monstrous Fame,  
The Honest Lay-man's Faith is still the same.  
And so much for Mr. Bays, for he has already detained me a little too long from what I chief intended; but since his Arguments were so strong and pertinent to my purpose, I judged it not amiss to have my Opinion favoured by so Eminent an Author of their own, which I made use of only as an Introduction to the more serious and useful part, namely, what I promised in the beginning of the Letter (viz.) the Examining those Places of Scripture which the Papists do most insist on for proving their Church or the Pope, (no matter which) Infallible. But I fear I have already transgressed the Bounds of a Letter, and therefore I shall reserve the rest till another opportunity, in the mean time I shall Subscribe myself,  
Sir, Yours to Command so far 
 As in the power lies of your obliged J. R.   

THE SECOND LETTER.  
SIR,  
I Have Received yours, and am not a little proud at your gracious Acceptance of my last, which gives me no small Encouragement of giving you the trouble of a second, which I hope will give you a full satisfaction of what my poor Sentiments are, touching the Doctrine of Infallibility; which indeed is the second Part to the same Tune, only with this difference; 
Neither Mr. Bays nor his Banter,  
Of his Milk white Hind and Panther  is at all concerned in this; for though Bays Reasons and Arguments are strong and to the purpose, yet with those of our Saviour's and the Apostles, I did not judge it necessary they should be Transcribed in one Letter, no more than I thought them fit to be named in the same day; and that was the Reason, Sir, of my giving you a double trouble; but without any more Preamble I will endeavour to make good my Promise in my last (viz.) the examining those Places of Scripture which are made use of for the proving the Doctrine of Infallibility, and likewise those Places (which all Honest and sincere Protestants ought to consider) that plainly prove the contrary. I will begin first with those Places, or rather that Place (for I can find but one that seems so much as to favour the Point in Hand) which is Matthew the 16. and the 17, 18, and 19 Verses, Then Jesus answered and said unto Peter, blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven: And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.  
In which words the Romanist do believe St. Peter to be made the Infallible Head of the Church, etc. as sure as the Wafer after Consecration is transubstantiated into the Corporeal substance of our Blessed Lords Body; and upon that account it is, the pretended Successors of St. Peter has Lorded it over, not only their Fellow Bishops, but all Christian Princes and Crowned Heads; but upon what Grounds this more than Sovereign Authority has been set up and practised, I shall now inquire, and I do not question but to make it appear from our Saviour's own words, that he neither meant or intended any such Power and Authority to be set up by his Disciples and Followers, as is at this day exercised by some body in the World, etc. and that will plainly appear if we consider the occasion of those words of our Saviour to St. Peter, which was the Question our Saviour asked (not St. Peter but) all the Disciples (Matt. the 16. and 13. ver.) When Jesus came into the Coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his Disciples, saying, Whom do men say, that I, the Son of Man, am. Now it is not to be supposed that our Saviour asked them because he did not know as well as they what the People's thoughts were concerning him, but in all probability it was to draw a Confession of their own Opinion of him; for in the 15. ver. He saith unto Them, but whom say Ye that I am; then we find ver. the 16th. And Simon Peter answered and said, thou art Christ the Son of the living God; upon which account it was that our Saviour, in the next verse said, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, etc. so that it is plain our Saviour's words had Relation to all the rest of the Disciples, whose Answer it was, though St. Peter (like a Foreman of a Jury) delivered it as the Belief and Sentiments of them all; for we find (as I before observed) the question was put to them all, but it would be unreasonable to suppose they should (as in a rout) answer we all, all, one and all, do believe, etc. but they being all present, without contradicting St. Peter, 'tis not to be questioned but that they did All believe and own the same thing; so that it would be some violence offered to that place of Scripture, to understand our Saviour meant the Person of St. Peter, and not the Confession, which (in the behalf of them all) he delivered, being so happy (as he was always very forward) to speak first: and it is not unreasonable to suppose, that if any of the other Disciples had said the same thing, our Saviour's answer would have been the same likewise. And that our Saviour did not intent those words to be understood, as some would have them, will better appear if we consider two things: First the great caution that our Blessed Saviour gave, with the care and pains he took upon all occasions, to prevent his Disciples entertaining so much as a Notion of that Nature: And, Secondly, a positive Command to the contrary. As to the first we find in St. Mark the 9 and 33. our Saviour ask his Disciples What it was they were disputing of among themselves by the way; but they held their peace, etc. and well they might, for they knew they had been disputing upon a rung Topick, for the matter was no less than who amongst them should be the greatest, as you may read ver. the 34. and in the next ver. we have our Saviour's answer, And he sat down and called (I pray mark) the Twelve, and saith unto them, if any Man desire to be first the same shall be last of all, and Servant of all. From which we may observe the early care our Saviour took to prevent this Doctrine of Exercising Authority over one another; and though it was possible but a Discourse to pass away the time as they were coming to Capernaum, yet our Blessed Lord, that knew their thoughts as well as their dispute, takes an occasion to crush this Cockatrice in the Egg, that it might not reign in his Spiritual Kingdom; for no doubt he did foresee the ill Consequence of it. But were this Doctrine of such important use as some would make it, one would think nothing had been more necessary for the Peace and Good of the Christian Church, than the Doctrine of St. Peter and his Successors Infallibility to have been delivered to the World, so plain (as is indeed the contrary) that it could not admit of a Dispute. And therefore for our Saviour and the Apostles to be (if I may so say) wanting in a matter of so great concern, appears to me wonderful strange; and it is not to be doubted, that if such an Infallible Guide and Head of the Church had been necessary, our Blessed Lord, whose design and purpose of coming into the World was to do and procure for us all imaginable good, would not have been wanting in instituting so convenient a Determiner of all Controversy, nor likewise sparing of his pains in the instructing and directing us how and where to find this Balm of Gilead, this Philosopher's Stone, which is able to refine and cure all the Distempers and Divisions of the Christian World about the true Worship of God, etc. Besides, had Almighty God designed his Church such a particular Head, how unreasonable would it be to suppose our Saviour should be ignorant of it; and if the contrary, to conceal it from his Disciples, especially at this time, when they were contending (as it were about the same thing) who amongst them should be the greatest: And without all doubt had our Saviour designed to have invested St. Peter with such a Power, he would have acquainted them with it, and would (as this had been a very fit time) have told them, they need not trouble themselves about those unnecessary Disputes, for there was one amongst them that was already designed and intended to be the Rock and only Foundation on which he would build his Church, and so consequently their Principal Head and Governor, and they ought to respect him and his Successors accordingly. But as there is no Footsteps or Place of Scripture to warrant our Belief of any thing of this kind, let us inquire whether there be any to the contrary, which is the second thing to be considered, (viz.) our Saviour's positive Command to his Disciples, that they should not exercise any such Authority, etc. and that will more plainly appear in the 20th. of St. Matt. and the 20. and 21. verses, When the Mother of Zebedees' Children came to desire that her two Sons might sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the left, of our Blessed Saviour in his Kingdom, we find all the rest moved with Indignation against the two Brethren (for their Ambition of being exalted above their Fellows) and though 'tis reasonable to suppose this desire was grounded upon a mistake of Christ's Kingdom (which the Jews, nay the very Disciples themselves, at that time did believe it, a Temporal one) yet we find our Saviour takes care to rectify both their mistakes and ambitious Temper of Mind, of being exalted one above another, which was by no means to be practised amongst them, as you may read from the 25th. to the 29th. of the same 20th. of St. Matthew. But Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great exercise Authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your Servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his Life a Ransom for many.; To the same purpose in St. Mark the 10th. from the 42. to the 46. and in St. Luke the 22. and the 25. and 26. Verses, and so on; by all which Places, and many more to the same purpose, we may observe the more than ordinary care our Saviour took to cure this Epidemical Distemper that had began to infect them in his days; that they might be the better prepared to follow his Example, especially in that humble, peaceable Temper of Mind, etc. The consideration of which one would think is sufficient to convince any Rational Creature of the unreasonable pretence of the pretended Successors of St. Peter's claiming a Supreme Power and Authority, not only in Ecclesiastical matters, but Temporal over all Christian Kings and Princes, pretending they hold their Authority by Virtue of the Pope's Grace and Favour, and that he can depose one and set up another as he thinks fit. And that this is no new Notion, you shall hear what my Brother Layman says to the same purpose, in the Preface to his FAITH, Page the 5th. How can we be secure from the practice of Jesuited Papists in that Religion; for not two or three of that Order, as some of them would impose upon us, but almost the whole Body of them are of Opinion, that their Infallible Master has a Right over Kings, not only in Spituals but Temporals; not to name Mariana, Bellarmine, Emanuel Sa. Molina, Santarel Simancha, and at the least, Twenty others of Foreign Countries: We can produce of our own Nation, Champion, and Doleman or Parsons; besides many are named whom I have not read, who all of them attest this Doctrine, that the Pope can depose and give away the Right of any Sovereign Prince, Si vel paulum deflexerit, if he shall never so little warp; but if he once comes to be Excommunicated, than the Bond of Obedience is taken off from Subjects, and they may and aught to drive him like another Nabuchadnezzar, ex hominum Christianorum Dominatu, from Exercising Dominion over Christians; and to this they are bound by Virtue of Divine Precept, and by all the Ties of Conscience, under no less Penalty than Damnation. Which is more than our Saviour and the Apostles ever taught or pretended to, but the contrary is very evident; and to that purpose St. Paul in the 13th. to the Romans ver. the 1. says, Let every Soul be subject unto the Higher Powers, etc. which Power is there understood the Supreme Magistrate, and ver. 6. For this cause pay you Tribute also, for they are Gods Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. And to the same purpose St. Peter himself Commands this Duty, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake; whether it be to the King as Supreme, or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him, etc. the first Epistle of Peter the 2. chap. the 13. and 14. verses. So that 'tis plain who the Apostles calls Supreme, and whom our blessed Lord, owned, does appear by his putting himself to the Charge of a Miracle, lest he should offend. But this was a great while ago, and the Cause and the Times altered, and another sort of a Supremacy set up, which was not known in those days, not till many Centuries after; for if St. Peter had been invested with any such Authority (as his pretended Successors pretend too) certainly our Saviour or the Apostles would in some manner one time or other have taken notice of it; but for our Hearts we cannot find any such thing. But to oblige our Roman Friends, I will examine the Matter a little farther, and the better to inform ourselves of this great Point, we will take a view of our Saviour's treating St. Peter after this supposed Prerogative delivered him; in the same 16th. of St. Matthew (where our Saviour is supposed to give St. Peter only the Power of the Keys) we find our Blessed Lord telling his Disciples what he was to suffer, etc. From that time forth began Jesus to show to his Disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then St. Peter took him and began to rebuke him saying, Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee, ver. the 21. and 22. but pray mark our Saviour's answer (to this Infallible Head) in the next verse; But he turned and said unto Peter, get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of Men. By which it appears it was not the Person, but the great Truth in the Confession, which he delivered in the behalf of himself and the rest, that was the Rock our Saviour would build his Church, etc. which indeed is a good and strong Foundation, such a one as our Saviour speaks of in the 7th. of St. Matthew, the 24. and 25. Therefore whosoever heareth these say of mine, and doth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his House upon a Rock; and the Rain descended, and the Floods came, and the Winds blew, and beat upon that House; but it fell not, for it was founded upon a Rock; which Parable is understood of a good Christians Faith, which will hold out against the Storms and Tempests of Persecution, which all good Christians will do, whose Faith is built upon that Confession of St. Peter (viz.) Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, which as a good and strong Foundation, will support all the rest of our Creed, and therefore by an Allegorical Expression called a Rock, which must be understood in a Spiritual Sense, on which Christ would erect his Spiritual Kingdom. Agreeable is that place of St. Paul, Ephesians the 2. and the 19 and 20. verses, Now therefore ye are no more Strangers and Foreigners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone. So that here 'tis plain, and beyond all dispute, that the Apostles and Prophets were the Rock and Foundation, that is to say, the Faith and Doctrine which they did profess and teach (and not their Persons) was the Rock and Foundation that both our Saviour and St. Paul meant, on which the Christian Church was built; if otherwise, why should he omit telling them they were built upon St. Peter, that Rock and Head of the Church? and so of the rest; but we see he takes no more notice of St. Peter than the rest. Besides, there is little reason to suppose our Saviour should mean the Person of St. Peter, when he so well knew the weakness of that Foundation; for tho' he was indeed very forward upon all occasions, as his attempting to go to our Saviour when he was walking on the Sea, yet we find this presumptive Faith soon failed him, for he was forced to implore our Saviour's Assistance, by crying out, Lord help me or I perish: And again, notwithstanding his Resolution to die rather than deny his Lord, etc. yet we find our Saviour telling him, Matthew the 26. and 34. verse, Before the Cock crow he should deny him thrice; in all which we do not find any more notice taken of St. Peter by our Saviour than of any of the other Disciples, unless it were to reprove him for his want of Faith and other Faults. And we may observe further that on all occasions our Saviour was not wanting in cautioning his Disciples, not only to forbear setting up such an Authority (as we have been treating of) amongst them, but likewise commanded all Obedience to be given to the Supreme Powers that was then in the World: and from thence it was that he reproved St. Peter's rashness in drawing his Sword, though he did it with design to defend him against those that came to apprehend him, John the 18. ver. the 11. Then said Jesus unto Peter, put up thy Sword, etc. and he gives the reason for it, ver. the 36. Jesus answered, my Kingdom is not of this world, if my Kingdom were of this world, then would my Servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my Kingdom not from hence; which I think is a very powerful Argument against him who calls himself Christ's Vicar, and Lords it over all the Kingdoms of the World, contrary to Christ's Command, and the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians for almost a Thousand years after Christ. But to proceed, since we cannot find, in all the time of our Saviour's being with his Disciples in the Flesh, any thing to warrant our belief of St. Peter's being the Head, etc. We will go one step further, and inquire if after his Resurrection (which was the accomplishment and Confirmation of all he had delivered to them) whether he did deliver to St. Peter any Power or Commission, more than he did to any of the rest of his Disciples. In the three last verses of the 28th. of St. Matthew we thus read, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, go Ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and lo I am with you even to the end of the world. Now 'tis granted that here is a Commission given; but to whom? was it delivered to Peter, James or John? etc. No, but to them all, in those words Go Ye, etc. Neither do we find any distinction, though St. Peter and all the rest was there at the same time, as you may read verses the 16th. and 17th. of that Chapter; Then the Eleven Disciples went away to Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. And in St. Mark the 16th. and the 14th. and 15. verses, And afterward he appeared unto the Eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto THEM, go YE into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. So that here is again the same Commission, but without any Pre-eminence given to either of them. St. Luke makes no mention of this Matter: And for that Place of St. John which the Romanists brag so much of from our Saviour, biding St. Peter three times feed his Sheep; it is I think impossible to be understood as if from thence our Saviour intended Him to be the Head and Chief of the Apostles; but rather, as it is most probable, to strengthen his Faith, that he might be the better enabled to go through with a difficult Work; for we find our Saviour telling him in the two following verses, being the 18th. and 19th. of the last of St. John, What he was to suffer for his sake, etc. So that it is very reasonable to suppose that our Saviour's knowing his weakness from his former denying him, might upon that account lay a more strict Command upon him than any of the rest. Besides, it is not unreasonable to suppose from those words of our Saviour (viz.) Simon Son of Ionas lovest thou me, which was as oft repeated as his biding him Feed his Sheep, might be to upbraid him for his former denying him, whereby he might take notice he had given our Blessed Lord sufficient reason to doubt; and as he had (notwithstanding his Resolution to the contrary) denied him with Oaths and Imprecations three several times: So possible that might be one great Reason why our Saviour did likewise trible his Commands, etc. And to me it appears plain, that our Saviour's trible Command, of biding St. Peter Feed his Sheep, can have no Relation to his being made Head of the Church, notwithstanding that Papistical objection (viz.) to whom did our Saviour so oft bid Feed his Sheep, &c, which objection I must needs say is a very strong sheepish one, though at the same time I know it is urged as a strong Argument, to confirm (as they say) the Commission which our Saviour gave to St. Peter in those words, (viz.) Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, etc. And they tell us our Saviour's giving such a particular charge to St. Peter, must import something more than ordinary, which indeed is very true, and I think the reason as plain; for, as I before observed, our Saviour well knowing his Faith wanted his special assistance, took more than ordinary care that his Faith might be agreeable to his Confession (which indeed was the Rock our Saviour meant) and to that purpose we read in the 22. of St. Luke the 31. and 32. verses, And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not; and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. By which words we find he was not as yet converted, nor indeed any of them, until after the Resurrection; for as our Saviour had foretold, Matthew the 26. verse the 31. I will smite the Shepherd, and the Sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. So after the Jews had put our Saviour to death, we find them dispersed and scattered up and down, for indeed they could not tell well what to make of the matter, as appears by the discourse our Saviour had with some of them as they were going to Emmaus, which was distant from Jerusalem some threescore Furlongs, Luke the 24. from the 13. to the 25. verse, and at the 21. verse, But we trusted that it had been He which should have Redeemed Israel, etc. By which it appeared they was still in doubt; but after Christ's Ascension and sending the Holy Ghost, the promised Comforter, amongst them, we find they were very bold and courageous, and some thousands was converted, Acts the 2. and the 41. at St. Peter's first Sermon; from which some Learned Men have understood those words, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, etc. as a particular favour of our Saviour's to St. Peter, in making him the first Instrument of laying the Foundation of his Church, not at Rome, but Jerusalem (which indeed was the Mother Church) and as our Saviour was to the Jews, so may the misunderstanding that Place of Scripture (viz.) Upon this Rock, etc. be a stumbling Block (possibly) to the Papist. And for those words of our Saviour's bidding St. Peter feed his Sheep, it cannot possible, without taking leave of our Understandings, be understood as our Roman Friends would persuade us; but much rather from their being so oft repeated, we may reasonable gather our Saviour's purpose was, they should make the greater and deeper impression in his Heart, that so he might not forget this his last Command, as he forgot him Matthew the 26.72. ver. And again he denied him with an oath, I do not know the Man. And so much shall suffice for our inquiry, how or in what manner our Saviour, both before and after his Resurrection, took notice of St. Peter more than of the rest of his Disciples, in Relation to his being the Chief and Head of the Church. But the better to understand this Infallible Point, which is of so great concern, that if gained, it would be like a General's taking the Metropolis of a Kingdom, all the little Towns and Villages would fall in in course. I will go one step further, and inquire whether the Apostles themselves did know or believe any such thing in their Time; for certainly if St. Peter had been invested with any such Power, they could not be ignorant of it; and that time (viz.) after Christ's Ascension into Heaven, and sending the Holy Ghost, was the most proper to have put it in Execution. But in the prosecution of this I shall make two Inquiries; First, Whether St. Peter did assume or take upon him any such Power and Authority above the rest of the Apostles? And, secondly, Whether the rest did give Place or any Pre-eminence to St. Peter, as believing him to be their Chief and Head? and if neither of these two things do appear, I hope it will sufficiently clear the Point in hand. I will begin with the first, Whether St. Peter did assume any such Power? etc. after the Disciples return from seeing our Saviour taken up into Heaven, Acts the 1. and 13. verse, we thus read, And when they were come in, they went up into an upper-room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the Brother of James; which indeed is all the Eleven, but without any manner of distinction, which certainly would have been a great fault in St. Luke (the supposed Author of the Acts) had he known St. Peter to have been the Head, etc. And again when the Apostles met to choose one in the room of him which betrayed our Lord, verse the 23. and 24. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Mathias: And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord which knowest the Hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. And verse the 26. THEY gave forth their Lots, and the Lot fell upon Mathias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. From which it is evident St. Peter did not assume any Power above the rest in this matter, though it was of so great concern as the choosing an Apostle, but did only act equally with the rest, as appears by those words before recited (viz) And THEY appointed; and THEY gave forth their Lots, etc. So that from hence 'tis reasonable to suppose that neither St. Peter nor the rest of the Apostles did so much as dream of such a Power lodged in any one of them, for if they had, one would think than it had been as proper a time to have made use of it as any since; and then upon such an occasion it had been rational for the Evangelist to have given the Account of that matter thus (viz.) St. Peter the Chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church, etc. did Summons the Rest to attend and be present, at HIS Choosing or Consecrating a Person whom HE judged sit to be Ordained a Witness, with them (in the room of Judas) of our Blessed Lords Resurrection. This, as it would have been to the purpose, so likewise it would have been highly necessary at that time, for then the rest of the Apostles would not only have known this great Prerogative of St: Peter, but likewise how to have behaved themselves accordingly, and also to have instructed their Followers in the like Obedience to him and his Successors. But to proceed, in the second of the Acts we read of the Holy Ghost's descending verse the 3. and 4. And there appeared unto THEM Cloven Tongues, like as of Fire, and it sat upon (I pray mark, not one, St. Peter only, but) EACH of THEM, and THEY were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other Tongues, as the Spirit gave THEM utterance; where by the way we may take notice the Evangelist still keeps to his Rule of giving an impartial account; for in this place also he tells us the Holy Ghost made no distinction, notwithstanding St. Peter's being present, but sat upon EACH, and THEY were ALL filled, etc. And in the third of the Acts verse the 6. we find St. Peter cure a Man that had been lame from his Mother's Womb; yet St. John's being present, he does not assume, as if he only in the Name of Jesus had done it, but makes St. John a Copartner and instrumental in it, as you may observe upon the People's being gathered together ver. the 11. and 12. And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the People, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this, or why look ye so earnestly on US, as though by OUR own Power or Holiness WE had made this man to walk: In which Place no less than three times he speaks in the Plural Number, (viz.) US, OUR and WE, etc. which plainly shows, that neither St. Peter's humble Temper nor Spirit does reign in his pretended Successors. And so much shall serve for the first Inquiry, whether St. Peter did take upon him or assume any such Infallible Power, etc. The second is, Whether the Apostles did give Place or Pre-eminence to St. Peter as believing him to be their Chief and Head of the Church, etc. When the Highpriest, and those that were with him (which was the Sect of the Sadduces) had laid hands on the Apostles, and put them into the Common Prison, the Angel of the Lord by night opened the Prison-doors, and brought them forth, and said, go stand and speak in the Temple to the people all the words of this Life: And when THEY heard it, THEY entered the Temple, etc. as you may read Acts the 5. from the 17. to the 22. verse; in all which we do not find any difference, but an equal Power and Authority was delivered to them all. But 'tis possible the Romanist may object against the Commission given by this Angel, and say, 'tis the same that St. Paul gave them caution of, saying, If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Doctrine (than Infallibility) etc. let him be accursed. But what they will say to the Holy Ghost and Spirit of God, for not taking notice of the Prerogative given (as they say) by our Saviour to St. Peter, I cannot imagine, but I suppose the next General Council that's called by his supposed Successor, something may be done to be even with Him. But to go on. After the Church began to increase, we read Acts the 6. and the 1. verse, And in those days, when the number of the Disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their Widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Now any body would think if St. Peter had been invested with such a Power, etc. none more fit to order and appoint Persons for that business, because it might have been done with much less trouble than by assembling the Multitude, which was the method they took, as you may read verse the 2. and 3. of that Chapter, Then (not St. Peter, but) the Twelve, called the multitude of the Disciples unto THEM, and said, It is not reason that WE should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore Brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost and wisdom, whom (pray observe) WE may appoint over this business. Which was done accordingly, And when THEY had prayed, THEY laid their hands on them, etc. And in another Cause different from this, When the Apostles, which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY sent unto them Peter and John. Now this methinks seems very odd for the Chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church, to be sent by his Inferiors as it were of an Errand. So that it is plain the Apostles did not behave themselves as they ought, or else they did not believe any such Authority to be placed in St. Peter; but we do not find only the Apostles, but the new Converts, contending and chideing (as it were) St. Peter; so that he was forced to tell a long Story for his Justification, as you may read Acts the 11. from the beginning to the 18. verse, from which 'tis evident THEY had the same opinion of his being the Head of the Church then, as we have of his pretended Successors now. But once more to make (if possible) the Cause more plain, in the 15. of the Acts, we have an account of the first Council that ever was held in the Christian Church, where were most, if not all the Apostles, and likewise the occasion of it, as you may read ver. the 1. and 2. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question: And the Apostles and Elders came together about this matter. But in all that account we do not find one Syllable of St. Peter's taking Place or exercising any Authority above the rest in this Assembly, nor the rest taking any notice of him in that kind. But when there had been much disputing, Peter risen up and said unto them, etc. verse the 7. So it does not appear that he spoke first to the business in hand, for there was much disputation before he began to speak to the matter, and ver. the 12. Then all the multitude (which argues there was a great number) kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, etc. And after they had held their peace James answered, and said, Men and Brethren hearken unto me. And so goes on from the 13 to the 22. verse of that chapter; from which we may observe that if any of them was infallible it was St. James; for they all (as you may observe in that Place) seemed to be concluded by what he delivered; for we do not find that any contradicted him, or so much as spoke after him. But it follows, Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church (which I suppose was all the Multitude there Assembled) to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas surnamed Bar●abas, and Silas, chief men among the Brethren: And wrote letters by them after this manner, The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren send greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your Souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the whole Law, to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto US, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, verse the 22.23, 24. and 25. of the same 15. of the Acts. And we find Paul and those that were with him, as they went through the Cities, deliver them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders that were at Jerusalem, Acts the 16. and 4. verse. Which decrees may possibly rise up in Judgement against some body; for if ever any Council was infallible this was, and the Decrees they made; yet we do not find in the least manner, neither by St. Peter nor the rest of the Apostles, any thing of this Infallible Head-ship pretended to by them, which is a strong Argument there was no such Notion known in their time, and that which further confirms me, is that Place of St. Paul, Galatians the 2. and 12. ver. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Now this sounds very strange, What! the Infallible Head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles, in a fault that deserved such a sharp Reproof, sure St. Paul was in an Error and mistaken, or else the pretended Infallible Successors of St. Peter are; for I cannot be persuaded but if St. Peter had been but as Infallible as some have made themselves, it was impossible for him to do any thing that might give occasion to St. Paul to be angry with him, as no doubt but he was, when he withstood him to the face. There is two Places more I cannot omit, by reason they are much to the purpose, but I will but name them and hasten to a conclusion; for I did not at first entrance upon this Discourse design to have been so redious, but the matter being of so great Consequence, I judged it necessary to give you, Sir, as full satisfaction as possible I could. Corinthians the 1st. chapter the 12. verse the 28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers; and so on. Now if St. Peter had been the Head (as our Romish Friends would persuade us) why should St. Paul omit it in this Place? where he seems to be so exact in distinguishing the Orders and Degrees that God had set in his Church, by First, Second, and Thirdly, etc. but it is evident he knew nothing of the matter, for if he had, 'tis but reason to suppose he would have given an account of those Orders thus (viz.) God had set some in the Church, First St. Peter the Head, secondly Apostles, thirdly Prophets, etc. And in the 4th. of the Ephesians ver. the 11. much to the same purpose, And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, but not one word of this Infallible Guide; which to me, and I hope all unprejudiced Persons, is a sufficient Proof that no such Power was ever intended by our Saviour to St. Peter, nor that St. Peter did ever own that he had any such Authority▪ nor the Apostles believe any such matter; which is I think sufficient for the second Inquiry, Whether the Apostles did give Place or Pre-eminence to St. Peter, as believing him to be the Head of the Church, etc.  
And now to Conclude, all they ground their Arguments upon, are general Considerations, That there ought to be an Infallible Judge, and from thence they would infer our Saviour did possibly Institute such a one, and the most likely Person was St. Peter, from those words of our Saviour, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, etc. But the most that this can amount to, is but a favourable Construction of the matter. Now by the same Rule 'tis I hope as rational to presume the contrary, especially from the Consideration of so many Places of Scripture as I have here set down, which do not favour this Infallible Doctrine; all which I will draw up to this one single Point