affair, and apologizes for his conduct. In the dispute about circumcision, in the 15th chapter we find St. Peter speaking, but St. James closes the debate, marking his opinion with these emphatical words, "My sentence is;" and the determination is sent in the name of all the Apostles in general, without any particular mention of St. Peter. Can any man deny that it unavoidably follows from these passages, that no such Supremacy or Infallibility was al lowed to that Apostle in those days; St. Paul, in the 2d chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, says, "he withstood St. Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed;" and afterwards talking of himself and others, says, that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel;" and avows that he brought his charge against Peter, before them all.

"

Now, had St. Peter had that extraor dinary power and infallibility that the Pope pretends to, he would directly have excommunicated St. Paul without further ceremony. But no such transaction is recorded. From these passages it plainly appears, that the power and privileges assumed by the Pope, (allowing him to be Peter's successor, and that he succeeded

to his privileges as well as his place are usurped and ill founded.

The worship of creatures was the second thing I promised; upon which I shall be as brief as possible; but lest any one should mistake what I mean by worshipping creatures, whether image, saint, or angel; I do not accuse the Church of Rome to be guilty of worshipping them as so many Gods, supposing them to have any divinity in them; and in this sense I do not call her idolatrous: But if by idolatry I am to understand the worshipping of any creature with such kind of worship as God has forbidden, or with such worship as ought to be given to God alone, in both these senses, it is plain the Church of Rome is guilty of it. God has positively forbid the making of any picture or image of himself: to Je liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him, Isaiah xl. 18. He has also as positively forbid the making of any graven image, or likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them, for I the Lord thy God, am a jealous God. All this and more is to be found in the second commandment, nor

whom will

could I ever find that this positive law, promulgated by the Almighty himself upon mount Sinai, was ever abolished except by the Pope's authority. It is not only forbidden by the second commandment, the paying of divine worship to images, or likenesses as the Roman divines must have it, but universally all kind of worship, even so much as to bow to them: How then do they observe the law of God, who not only bow but kneel, and even pros trate themselves before those lifeless figures pray to them to assist or obtain assistance for them in all their necessities!

There is scarce a city or town in the Romish countries which has not some miraculous image of the virgin, or some saint, to boast of, before which they not only bow, but prostrate themselves, direct their prayers, in the most devout manner, offer incense, and even carry it about in triumph and procession, in order to obtain for them relief in their necessities; nor is it possible, if God himself was there visibly present, that they could pay him any greater respect or worship than I myself have seen them do to their favourite images. It does not even appear that the Heathens, themselves paid greater worship

་ ་

to their images, than what is mentioned and practised in those countries where the Roman religion is established; neither did the Heathens look upon the images themselves to be gods; as they well knew them to be male of brass, gold, silver, or some other matter; so that the worship they paid them could not be an absolute but relative one; not terminated in the image itself, but farther directed to the Deity whom they supposed to be represented by it; which is the very doctrine of the Romish Church concerning her image worship.

It only now remains that I should say something about Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass; one of the new articles of Pope Pius's Creed, without the

impostor no man can be saved. I call him an impostor, following the example of the Apostle Paul, whose words are, "though we, or an angel from Heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him, be accursed," Gal. i. 8.

belief of which, according to th

The doctrine of Transubstantiation most likely was brought into the Church in the ninth century, although not fully establish

ed until the eleventh; this doctrine is, that
after the words of consecration are pro-
nounced by a Priest, who has an intention
to do what the Church of Rome intends
to do, the whole substance of the bread
and wine are changed into the real and
natural body of Christ; and that after the
bread is broken, his whole body, soul, and
divinity is under every appearance though
ever so small, of the consecrated elements,
which doctrine is subject to many objec
tions, which would be sufficient to explode
it for ever from the assent of any reason-
able man.
First. According to this doctrine,
Christ must have a different body from
that which he took in the womb of the
Virgin, as the one was formed from the
substance of his mother, the other from a'.
bit of bread and wine; that he must have
almost numberless bodies at the same time
in distant places, though he has but one,
which make a contradiction; or that the
same individual body can be in many dis-
rant places at the same time, which is de-
nied by philosophers.

Secondly. The people, no not the Priest Himself, can have any assurance that the consecration of the elements is good, al