Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you And again Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Here I observe 1. That the Apostles in their first Mission were sent to the Jews and them only But now their Commission is Inlarged and they are Equally sent every one as much as any one to all Nations says Matthew To All the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Eusebius Explains it says St. Mark Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae Orbis Termini The whole World was their Diocese every ones Jurisdiction Extended so far and Peter's could not extend no further 2. For the Persons they were to Preach to they were Every Man in the World It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature every Rational Creature who if Infancy and Infirmity hinder'd not was capable They were to Convert Pagans and make them our blessed Saviour's Disciples and Sheep and then feed them with the Word and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Matthew Convert and make them Disciples and then Baptize and Teach them to observe whatever I have Commanded you Those words Feed my sheep on which without any just Reason they would build Peter's Supremacy contain only an Indefinite Proposition which as every one who understands Logick must Confess is only equivalent to a Particular But here the Commission given by our blessed Saviour to every Apostle as well as Peter is expresly Vniversal Preach to every Creature That is Feed All my sheep This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Roman Catholick Confesseth and fully proves it Only to save the Popes and his own Credit he says That to call General Councils belong'd only to Peter and the Pope by their Supremacy and not to any other But this is gratis dictum and an evident Untruth For the Pope by no Law of God or Man has or ever had Power to call any General Council And for many Ages never pretended to it which I only say now and when there is a Convenient time can and will make it Good In the mean time I think 't is certain either 1. That by those words Feed my sheep on which they build the Popes and Peters Supremacy our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supream Power to call General Councils that by them he might feed his Sheep Or 2. That the Apostles and Primitive Christians in their times knew no such thing For 1. When a Controversie arose at Antioch about Circumcision they send not to Peter as supream Head of the Church desiring him to call a Council but to the Apostles and Elders Had they known and believ'd that Peter had been Invested with such Power and Supremacy as is now pretended it had been Civility and Duty in them to have sent to him in the first place But they send to the Apostles and Elders without any notice taken of what they knew not Peter's Prerogative 2. It neither does nor can appear that Peter call'd that Council 3. Nor did he as Head and President of the Council speak first but the Question was much disputed before Peter spoke any thing 4. Nor did Peter after the Question was debated give the Definitive Sentence For 't is Evident in the Text That James the Less Son of Alphaeus and Bishop of Jerusalem gave the Definitive Sentence which both Peter and the whole Council acquiesc'd in 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch to signifie what he and the Council had done but the Apostles and the whole Church chose and sent their Messengers 6. Nor are the Letters sent in Peter's Name or any notice taken of any Primacy or Prerogative of his above the other Apostles No the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is The Apostles Elders and Brethren send Greeting 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name as made or confirm'd by him more than any other Apostle 8. Nay the Apostles send Peter on a Message to Samaria and he obeys and goes which had been a strange piece of Presumption had either he or they known his now pretended Monarchical Supremacy 9. So far were those Primitive Christians from knowing or acknowledging the now pretended Monarchical Supremacy of Peter that even in the Apostles times and Presence they question and call him to an Account for his Actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disceptabant adversus illum says the Vulgar Latin tanquam valde offensi expostulabant says Chrysostom And honest John Ferus a Roman Catholick tells us That he was Compell'd to give a Reason of his Actions to the Church nor was Peter offended at it because he knew that he was not a Lord but Minister of the Church But now as Ferus there goes on the Case is alter'd for wicked Popes as though they were Lords and not Ministers will not be Question'd for any thing or reprov'd Had the Canon Law been then in force which his pretended Successors have approved and by their Supream Authority publish'd he might have told those who Question'd him That he was to judge all men and none him nor was he to be reprov'd by any mortal man though by his Impiety and ill Example he carried thousands to Hell with him 10. Nay St. Paul does not only question St. Peter's Actions but to his face before the People publickly condemn them and that justly for he says he was to be blamed which he neither would nor indeed well could have done had he known Peter to have been so far his Superior as to have by Divine Institution a Monarchical Jurisdiction and Power over him 11. Lastly St. Paul himself tells us That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles not to Peter James or John whom elsewhere he reckons the chiefest I know they say That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office but Inferior to Peter as he was Supream Pastor over the Apostles and the whole Church But this is gratis dictum and indeed a begging of the Question and taking that for granted which never was nor ever will be proved However 't is certain 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter had an Vniversal supream Authority and Jurisdiction in any Part of the World and over any Christians wherever they came 2. That this largeness of their Jurisdiction was Apostolical and Personal to themselves which they neither did nor could transmit to their Successors whose Jurisdiction was limited to some City and Territory and that particular Place the Care and Charge whereof was committed unto them as Ephesus was to Timothy and Creet to Titus 3. Our Adversaries confess this as to all the other Apostles but for Peter they say He transmitted his Supremacy and Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church to his Successor and that by the Institution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right If they could prove this the Controversie were
reason to believe that those Popes were so far from Infallibility that their own Writings Convince them guilty of Gross Ignorance and Folly 5. Lastly All the Apostles were Fundamenta Ecclesiae Domus Dei Foundations of the Church or House of God as has before been evidently proved from Scripture and this was in all the Apostles Extraordinary and a Personal Apostolical Priviledge to which as it was in the Apostles none of their Successors no not the Pope ever did or with any reason could pretend And as this Apostolical Priviledge so the other four before mention'd 1. Immediate Vocation 2. Power to work Miracles 3. Vniversality of Jurisdiction 4. Infallibility in all things they preach'd or writ I say all these Priviledges were Extraordinary and Personal to the Apostles and never were transmitted to any of their Successors And this being granted as of necessity it ought and must it will evidently follow that Peter neither had nor could have that Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and Universal Church to which the Pope and his Party vainly and without any reason or ground pretend For that Papal Supremacy and Monarchy they pretend Peter had according to their Hypothesis consisted principally in the Universality of his Jurisdiction over the whole Church and his Infallibility as a Judge to determine Controversies of Faith both which every Apostle had as much and as well as he and therefore it was impossible that in these respects he should have any Superiority much less Supremacy over the other Apostles more than they over him especially seeing in Scripture to men who have good Eyes and will Impartially use them there is not one Syllable looks that way Nay seeing our blessed Saviour hath expresly determin'd the contrary The Apostles were disputing and reasoning amongst themselves which of them should be greatest they had their Infirmities and ambitious desires But our Saviour tells them Whosoever will be great among you though Peter be the man let him be their Minister and whosoever will be chief let him be your Servant And again Be not ye call'd Masters for one is your Master even Christ not Peter and ye are Brethren but he that will be greatest among you shall be your Servant The Apostles had no Master under Heaven but their blessed Saviour it was of him and him Only that they learned the Gospel and that Immediately they had it not from any man nor one from another Our blessed Saviour was their only Master and Superior and they his Scholars subordinate to him and co-ordinate amongst themselves He tells them that they are Brethren Condiscipuli School-fellows Names which in themselves and in their Master's meaning import Equality especially as to any Jurisdiction one over another There may be amongst Scholars of the same School and Brethren an inequality and so there was amongst the Apostles 1. In respect of Age Some might be elder some younger 2. In respect of their coming to that School some might come before others So Andrew was first call'd to our blessed Saviours School before Peter 3. In respect of Natural Parts and Abilities some might have greater Capacities then others 4. In respect of their Masters Love and Kindness he might love one more then another So amongst the Twelve John was the belovod Disciple Such inequality there was amongst them and we willingly grant it But to say as the Pope and many of his Party most vainly do that amongst these Brethren and School-fellows in our blessed Saviour's School Peter or any other had not only an Authority and Jurisdiction but a Monarchical Supremacy over all the rest this is so contradictory to our blessed Saviour's plain words and the manifest and undoubted meaning of them that were it not that we know men may be sway'd with worldly Interests and sometimes have strong Delusions to believe a Lye it were incredible that any Learned men should with so much Confidence and no Reason assert the Contrary To pass by all Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for many hundred years and many sober Papists before Luther who neither knew nor believed Peter's Monarchy over the Church and his fellow Apostles his Equals sure I am 1. That Francis Lucas Brugensis a Roman Catholick in our days eminent in their Church for Dignity and Learning says the same thing I have done and on the same Texts for the Equality of the Apostles against Peter's pretended Monarchy 2. And a greater then he I mean Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris convinc'd with the Evidence of the former Texts and Truth was of Opinion and has publish'd it to the World That our blessed Saviour at his Ascension did not leave the Church establish'd in Peter and a Monarchy But in an Aristocratie or the Colledge of the Apostles In which Colledge Peter was one not Superior much less a Monarch to the other Apostles and the Apostles left the Government of the Church Establish'd in the Bishops and Aristocratical only he thinks that both in the Colledge of the Apostles and Councils of Bishops after them there was for Orders sake to be a President not a Monarch for that was Inconsistent with Aristocratie And if this will content them we will grant it Because we do know that the Ancient Church allow'd the Pope the prime Place and Precedency in Councils for Orders sake and that not by any Divine Right which was not in those days so much as pretended to but because Rome was the Imperial City and Metropolis of the Roman Empire the greatness of the City usually giving greatness and precedency to the Bishops such were Constantinople Alexandria Antioch c. I know the Inquisitors at Rome have damned this Book of Petrus de Marca but this is no Argument that what he has said is not true Grande aliquo◠bonum est quod à Nerone ab Inquisitoribus damnatur To conclude this Point if our Adversaries assent not to this manifest Truth as being Contradictory to their worldly Interest and misconceived Infallible Pretensions 't is probable they will not I shall make them this to all unprejudiced Lovers of Truth fair offer Let them give me any one cogent Argument from Scripture or Universal Tradition and nothing else can do it whereby they can prove the following Positions I will thank God and them for the discovery and promise hereby to be their Proselyte 1. If they can by any such Argument prove that Peter by Divine Right had such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church as is vainly pretended I will yield the Cause But if he had no such Power 't is impossible he should transmit the Power he never had to his Successors 2. Let it be suppos'd which yet is evidently untrue that St. Peter had such a Monarchical Authority and Jurisdiction even over the rest of the Apostles let them prove by any such Argument as is before mention'd that it was not only Temporal his
that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome is true is this The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it and in their Index Expurgatorius Commanded it to be blotted out But Erasmus adds further That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest because where many are number'd there is a necessity we begin with some one and 't is not material which we begin with And This the Inquisitors let pass without a Deleatur they do not condemn it to be blotted out and so seem to approve it otherwise it had not pass'd so that even by our Adversaries consent all that can be rationally Inferr'd from that Text where in numbering the Apostles Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first is only a Primacy of Order which we willingly grant but no Primacy much less a Supremacy of Authority Dominion and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles which the Pope and his Party desire and we justly deny 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus so Princeps or Prince amongst the best Latin Authors usually signifies Order Only or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes without any Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter I have Authentick warrant even the Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent publish'd by Pius V. The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth and then Revised by the Authority of Clement VIII and Vrban VIII and Printed at Antverp 1660. In this Breviary we have this Hymn in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes Princes of the Churches For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two nor Properly to any but them two in that Place Though elsewhere it relates to all the Apostles as in the Place cited in the Margent when after the Invitatory as they call it Come let us adore the Lord King of the Apostles it follows thus Aeterna Christi munera Apostolorum Gloria Palmas Hymnos debitos Laetis canamus mentibus Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes according to the Decree of the Trent Council All the other Apostles under our blessed Saviour and by his Authority were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Peter Now I desire to know how these things will Consist Pius V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth says That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only to Peter and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms so he in his Bull and yet the same Pope in this Roman Breviary for it was Approved and Published by him and the Hymn here cited says That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes and if so then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed no the Commission of every Apostle given by our blessed Saviour was as unlimited and as large as Peters This will appear in all the Particulars of it equally given to all as they are expresly set down in Scripture from whence alone we can surely know what their Authority and Commission was Our blessed Saviour tells them and us 1. As my Father sent me so send I you There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all 2. Then he breath'd upon them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them It was that Holy Spirit which gave them 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine 2. Power to work Miracles for Confirmation of it 3. Then he adds whose sins ye retain they are retained c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church which is elsewhere called The Power of the Keys which Consists in binding and loosing retaining and remitting sins For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited and is by our Adversaries confess'd So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys the Power of binding and loosing of retaining and remitting sins is Equally given to all the Apostles to every One as well as Peter 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province where and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power Go and Teach All Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you Their Diocese was the World Go ye into All The World and preach the Gospel to every Creature every man And the administring the Sacraments and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Goâ—pel was the business they were to do in that their Diocese 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance Lo I am with you Always even to the End of the World These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles and which to me seems Evident without difference or distinction Equally to all to Simon the Cannite for so it should be writ as well and as much as to Simon Peter If any think otherwise if he can and will by any Cogent Reason make it appear either 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was in Scripture given peculiarly to Peter whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms as Pope Pius V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms I say he who can and will make both or either of these appear shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery and I shall for the future have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy which at present I take to be a groundless Error without any proof or probability I know that the Popes in their Constitutions and their Party usually urge that place in Matthew to prove Peter's and thence their own vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves not excepted the words These Thou art Peter and upon This Rock I will build my Church And I give unto thee The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven From this Place most
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
they could not have been saved And therefore they also are his Sheep 2. Yet they were Shepherds too sent by and subordinate to the great and chief Shepherd Jesus Christ in respect of the Church and Christians over which the Holy Ghost had set them 3. Our blessed Saviour is such a foundation and Founder of his Church as does not find but make these Lively Stones which are the Materials with which he builds it He gives his Spirit and by it Grace and a Lively Faith which things alone make men Lively Stones and fit for that Building This no Apostle not Peter much less any succeeding Pope ever did or could do nor without great folly and impiety can pretend to 4. Our blessed Saviour is such a Rock such a Foundation and Founder of the Church as was and is Proprietary and the sole true Owner of it 't is his House purchased with his precious Blood and he ever had and still hath a Magisterial and Imperial power over it to rule and govern it He is King of Saints 'T is true the Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations and Founders of the Church Those of the Judaical Church before our blessed Saviour's Incarnation these of the Christian Church after it But the Power and the Authority the Prophets or Apostles had even the greatest of them Moses or Peter was only Ministerial the Authority of Servants deriv'd from our blessed Saviour and Exercised under him So the Apostle tells us That Moses was faithful in all his House i. e. in the Judaical Church As A Servant but Christ as a Son over his Own House whose House Are We c. So in the Christian Church the Apostles All of them were Prime and Principal Ministers from and under Christ to call and build the Church They were Servants of Christ and for his sake of the Church they had Ministerium but not Imperium Neither Peter nor any other had that vast Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church which is not without great Error and Impiety pretended to when they blasphemously say That Peter was our blessed Saviours Successor and by him Constituted the Head of the Vniversal Church with the very same Power our blessed Saviour had But this they say only without any Proof or Probability and so transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. But although we say and have evident Reason and Authority for it That our blessed Saviour was the one and only prime and chief foundation and founder of the Church and all the Apostles Peter as well as the Rest Superstructions in respect of him yet we know and acknowledge that both in Scripture and Antiquity they are called Foundations and Founders of the Christian Church in respect of the Churches call'd Converted and Constituted by them but all Equally so Peter was no more a foundation then Paul or James or John For 1. They were all immediately call'd by our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon Peter or any body else as is Evident in the Text it self And this is generally Confess'd by the Popish Commentators even the Jesuits such as Tirinus Menochius c. I say all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship from our blessed Saviour except Matthias and he was not chosen by Peter who neither knew nor had any such Supremacy as without all reason is now ascribed to him but the Colledge of the Apostles and consent of the faithful there present And though a Learned Jesuit zealous for Peter and the Popes Supremacy would have Peter to be the Directior in that business the Election of Matthias yet he cannot deny but it was done by the Common Consent of the Apostles and Brethren 2. As the Apostles all of them Matthias excepted had their call Immediately and Equally from our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon St. Peter so they had their Commission immediately from him and in it the very same Power equally given to all The same power given to any one even St. Peter was given to every one This is Evident 1. From those plain Texts where their Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour before the Resurrection when they were sent to the Jews only and the very same Power equally given to all 2. And from those other as clear and plain Texts wherein after the Resurrection they had Commission and Authority given them by our blessed Saviour to preach to all Nations where it is As my Father sent me so I send you and Go ye c. All equally sent no difference or distinction of the Persons as to any Priviledge or Precedence no Degrees of Power more or greater in one then every one Their Commission and Authority given in it was the very same and equally given to all the Apostles These Truths are so evident in the Text that some sober Popish Writers do both profess and industriously prove them Franc A Victoria prime Professor of Divinity at Salamanca in Spain and as they esteemed and called him an Excellent and Incomparable Divine Proposes and proves these two Conclusions 1. All the Power the Apostles had was by them received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the Apostles had Equal Power with Peter And then he Explains his meaning thus That every Apostle had Ecclesiastical Power in the whole World and to do Every Act which Peter had Power to do But then to please the Pope and his Party he Excepts those Acts which were proper and belong'd peculiarly to the Pope as Calling of a General Council But this is gratis dictum without any pretence of proof or probability from Scripture and evidently contradictory to the known Practise of the Christian World after the Emperors became Christians who alone and not the Pope call'd all the Ancient Councils as is fully proved by a late and Learned Sorbon Doctor 5. But to proceed That Place in Matthew is urged in the foregoing Objection to prove the Monarchical Supremacy of Peter I Give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place I consider 1. That this Text is generally urg'd though most Impertinently to prove Peter's and the Popes Power over Kings and Emperors So Innocent III. Cites it to prove that the Emperor is subject to the Pope To the same purpose Pope Boniface VIII produceth it in his Impious and as to the Nonsense and Inconsequence of it ridiculous Extravagant which Bellarmine approves and Leo. X. and his Lateran Council which they call a General one Innovates and Confirms and yet a late Jesuit expresly tells us and you may be sure with the Approbation of his Superiors That the Keys were given Only to Peter These and many more quote this Place to the
his Feeding or Ruling them So they and Peter too are Sheep in Respect of our blessed Saviour the great Shepherd of the Sheep but not in respect of Peter they are Shepherds as well as he and never Committed to his Care or Cure that as his Sheep he should feed and govern them And as all the other Apostles in Respect of Peter were Foundations Shepherds of the Church coordinate with and equal to him So all other Bishops the Apostles Successors were Equal to Peter's pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome and no way bound to give any Reason of their Administration to him as to their Superior much less as to a Supream Prince and Monarch of the Christian World as the Canonists Jesuits and the Popish Party do now Erroneously and Impiously miscall him This was Cyprian's Opinion in the Place but now Cited And Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick though he seem to say much for Peter's and the Popes Supremacy yet he Confesseth as upon a serious Consideration of several Passages in Cyprian and the African Councils well he might That Cyprian's Opinion was That all Bishops were equal and were bound to give an Account of their Administration to our blessed Saviour Only and not to any Superior Bishop no not to Peter ' s Successor the Pope Nor is it any way probable that a Person so Excellent and Knowing as Cyprian should think otherwise seeing in his time as is notorious and well known to all who know Antiquity there was no Patriarch or Archbishop Superior by any Law of God or Man to the Ordinary Bishops as may and when there is an Opportunity shall be made Good It is true Cyprian if it be he and not the Interpolator of that Tract says That the Primacy was given to Peter and that the Church of Rome was The Principal Church Now this Primacy and Principality Cyprian speaks of is by me before and now freely granted A Primacy of Order and Precedency not of Jurisdiction or that Monarchical Authority which Anciently was not pretended to by themselves they now contend for And this Primacy which anciently was allowed to the Bishop of Rome was not from our blessed Saviour's gift but the greatness of that Imperial City Non à Petro sed à Patribus as the Canon of Chalcedon tells us And that which makes it more probable that I have given the true Sense of Cyprian is That Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick in his Dissertations and Notes on Cyprian Explains Cyprian's meaning just as I have done reducing the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Church not from any Prerogative given to that Bishop or Church by our blessed Saviour but from the greatness of that Imperial City And then Cites the Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which in Terminis and when Translated in plain English says the very same thing I have done And indeed that Canon made by Six hundred and thirty Fathers Synodically met in a legitimate General Council confirm'd by Imperial Edicts and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae does Authentickly and utterly overthrow that vast Monarchical Supremacy which the Pope and his Party for some Ages last past without any just ground contend for If any of our Adversaries think otherwise as possibly they may I shall make them this fair offer Let them bring me any Canon of any General Council of equal Authority and Antiquity with this of Chalcedon by which they can prove the Popes pretended Supremacy or any one Article of their own new Trent Creed And for the future I shall acquiesce and they shall have my Thanks and Subscription 6. Pius V. in his Bull says further That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Vniversal Church with a plenitude of Power to govern it to one only that is to Peter the Prince of the Apostles And His Successors Here I consider 1. That although it be certain from Scripture and evident Testimonies of pure and primitive Antiquity that Peter never had nor Executed any such Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles and the whole Christian Church as is now vainly pretended to yet 't is as certain that the Pope and his Party cry up and magnifie St. Peter's Power that he as his Heir and Successor may possess the same Power For this they say and without any just proof say it only That it was our blessed Saviour's will that Peter ' s Successor should have The Very same Power Peter had and this because he was Christ's Vicar though every Bishop in the World as shall God willing appear anon be Christ's Vicar as well and as much as he and sat in Peter ' s Chair as his lawful Successor 2. But admit dato non Concesso which is absolutely untrue That Peter had such a Supremacy and Monarchical Power as they Erroneously pretend to yet it might be Personal to himself and for his Life only as his Apostolical power was as to that part of it which was properly Apostolical and not Hereditary to be transferred to any Successor So that the Hinge of the Controversie will be here and our Adversaries concern'd to prove two Things 1. That Peter's Power be what it will was not Personal but Hereditary and to be Transmitted to his Successor 2. And that the Pope and Bishop of Rome was his Legal Successor For if they do not upon just Grounds make both these good good night to their pretended Supremacy For the First That the greatest Power St. Peter and the Apostles had was Extraordinary and Personal not to be Transmitted to any Successor what Power they did transmit I shall anon shew will be Evident in these Particulars 1. Peter and the Apostles had Vocationem à Christo Immediatam Our blessed Saviour call'd them all except Matthias Immediately as is evident from the Text. And sure I am that the Pope cannot pretend to such an Immediate Call 2. The Apostles every one as well as Peter had a Power given them to do Miracles to Cast out Devils and heal all manner of Diseases and Sicknesses Nor can Peter's Successor whoever he be pretend to this 3. The Jurisdiction which was by our blessed Saviour given to every Apostle to James and John and Paul as well as Peter was Universal the whole World was their Diocese Not that every one could possibly be in every place but where ever any of them came they had Authority to Preach Administer the Sacraments Constitute and Govern Churches So Paul did at Antioch and Rome as much and more than Peter though they pretend that Peter alone and not Paul was first Bishop of both those Places That every Apostle as well as Peter had Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over the whole World is in Scripture Evident by the Commission our blessed Saviour gave them Go and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father
in his Prophecy and was several times Imprison'd and cast into Dungeons with great danger of his Life at Jerusalem and when carried Captive into Egypt by some Rebellious Jews who would not obey the Word of God by him he was more miserably used and at last by them murder'd and martyr'd So far was Jeremy after God had given him that Commission from pulling down or destroying any man that on the contrary he patiently submitted to his Superiors and was by them though most injustly punished pull'd down and at last destroy'd 2. But the meaning of that Text evidently is I have set thee o-over Nations and Kingdoms to pull down destroy and dissipate c. Per modum Prophetantis Quid Judicio Justo facturus esset Deus praedicentis As a Prophet to foretell what God would do that unless they repented he would pull down destroy and dissipate those Nations and Kingdoms against which by God's express Command he Prophesied Jeremy had no Commission no Power or Authority to pull down or destroy any one single Person much less Kings and Emperors nor did he ever do or attempt any such thing he only Prophetied and premonish'd them from God that Destruction would come upon them for their sins but it was God only who could and did execute that Sentence and when they repented not destroyed them So in Scripture the Prophet is said to do that which he foretells will be done Joseph in Prison tells Pharaoh's Butler and Baker That within three days the one should be restored to his Place and the other hanged This coming to pass not by any Power of Joseph for he was a Prisoner yet the Text says That He restored the one and that He hang'd the other And this those Popes who so often urge this Text of Jeremy might have easily and certainly known had they studied Scripture and Divinity as much as Human Policy as too many of them do not For what I have said is expresly said in the very Text of Jeremy's Prophetie as he who compares and considers two or three Chapters in it may evidently see Sure I am to say nothing of the Fathers and Ancient Writers of the Church what I have said of the true meaning of this place in Jeremy is acknowledg'd even by the Jesuits and Canonists the greatest Flatterers of the Pope and Sticklers for his pretended Supremacy who Expound the Text as I have done I shall instance in One or Two 1. Corn A. Lapide a Noted and Learned Jesuit Expounding this Place of Jeremy says thus I have set thee over the Nations that thou should pull up That is saith he that thou shouldst Threaten my Enemies that unless they repent I will pull them out of the Countries where I have placed them And then he tells us truly that this is the Opinion of Hierome Theodoret Rabanus Vatablus Lyranus Dion-Carthusianus and others And then he adds That it is God not Jeremy who Pulls up and Plants the Nations So that when 't is said I have set thee To pull up and plant the Nations it is all one as◠if he had said I have set thee to Threaten and Preach that God would Pull up and Plant those Nations This is that we say and prove to be th◠meaning of that Text in Jeremy and the Jesuit fully Consents and Acknowledges it to be true 2. Pope Innocent III. in his Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople amongst several other places of Scripture brings this Text of Jeremy to prove the Priest especially Peter's Successor the Pope to be Superior to all Kings and yet Bernardus de Botono the Author of the Gloss there when he comes to Explain that Text I have set thee over the Nations to pull up and plant he has nothing of Deposing and setting up Kings but Conceives the meaning to be That Jeremy was set over Nations To pull up Vices and plant Virtues He truly Conceives that Jeremy was not Constituted a Prince with Dominion and Jurisdiction over Kings and Emperors to set them up or pull them down at his pleasure to which purpose many of the Popes produce it but a Prophet to foretell them what God would do That is He would plant them if they were Penitent if not pull down and destroy them So the Author of the Gloss and they tell us that he writ most Learned Glosses upon the Decretals of Gregory IX which afterwards had the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII Be it concluded then that Pius V. and those other Popes before mention'd notwithstanding their Infallibility have miserably mistaken the true meaning of this place of Jeremy And indeed he who reads and seriously Considers the several Places of Scripture which the Popes of the last 600. years have explained in their Bulls and Decretals and produc'd as proofs of their extravagant usurp'd Supremacy I say he will have just reason to believe that Popes are not the best Expositors of Scripture For Instance to omit others I shall refer the Reader to those 8. or 9. Places which Pope Innoc. III. and Bonif. VIII have Cited and Explain'd in two of their Constitutions both Extant in their Canon Law in the places before Cited where the Expositions and Applications of those places by those Popes are not only evidently Erroneous but being repugnant to all good Sense and Reason exceedingly ridiculous such as may give their Adversaries reason to believe that the Authors of such wild Interpretations are rather Fools than Infallible 5. Pope Pius V. here in the beginning of this his Bull calls Peter as other Popes and their Parasites usually do Prince of the Apostles and tells us that our blessed Saviour did set and constitute him a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms From whence they Illogically and without any shadow of Just Consequence would Conclude Peter's Supremacy his Dominion and Authority even over all the Apostles For although Peter in the Gospel when the Names of the Twelve Apostles are numbred is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primus and amongst Latin Authors anciently Princeps Apostolorum The Prince of the Apostles yet that Papal Supremacy which the Popes and their Party generally attribute to him that they as his Successors might have it themselves cannot thence be concluded So Erasmus tells us out of St. Hierome That the Apostles in the other Evangelists are not reckon'd in the Order they are in Matthew lest any man should think that Peter were first of all the Apostles because he is reckon'd in the first Place Matthew reckons Thomas before himself but Mark after him Matthew reckons Andrew before James and John but Mark after them So St. Paul reckons James before Peter and John though Matthew puts Peter first And Erasmus there says further that Hierome intimates That the Apostles were all as to their Apostolick Office Equal That which makes me believe
same purpose 2. It is certain and Confess'd that our blessed Saviour in this place of Matthew does not Actually give St. Peter the Power of the Keys be what it will but pro futuro promise that he will give it For it is in that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabo I will give not I have given or do give and therefore they must shew some other place in Scripture where that Power is Actually given to Peter and that to him alone else if it be given to the other Apostles as well as to him it will be Impossible to prove his Prerogative and Supremacy over the other Apostles from that Power which they have as well as he 3. But it is certain that the Power of the Keys bâ— what it will was by our blessed Saviour afterwards given to all the Apostles as well and 〈◊〉 much as to Peter So it evidently Appears bâ— St. Matthew in the place Cited Where ouâ— blessed Saviour speaking to all his Disciples aâ— well as Peter hath these words Verily I say untâ— You 't is all of them he speaks to whatsoeveâ— you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaveâ— and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall loosed in Heaven Here his Promise made beforâ— to Peter Chap. 16. 19. is made Good to him and the Power of the Keys given him but ' tâ—â— manifest that it is in the same time and Placâ— equally given to all the Apostles as well as 〈◊〉 Peter Their own Authentick Offices noâ— and heretofore in Publick use in the Church Rome do attest this truth In one of which they are taught to Invocate the Apostles in thâ— Form Orate pro eo Omnes Sancti Apostoâ—â— Quibus à Domino data est Potestas Ligandi Sâ—â—vendi The Power of Binding and Loosinâ—â— and so the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles as well as to Peter This the Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledgâ— that the Power of binding and loosing was given Paul as well as Peter and further adds Thâ— Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul and 〈◊〉 Petri Pauli ligat solvit binds and looseth their stead and place The Ancient MS. Mâ—â—sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham says the â—ry same thing So does their St. Anselme aâ—â— the Old Ordo Romanus expresly says That the Power of the Keys or the Power of binding and loosing was by our blessed Saviour given to all the Apostles and in them to all their Successors Vide Bandinum Lombardum c. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 18. 19. and the rest there Their Trent Catechism published by Pope Pius V. according to the Decree of the Trent Council assures us That every Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour Hence it is that in their Roman Pontifical in their Ordination of a Priest this Power of the Keys of remitting and retaining sins is given to every one Ordain'd to that Office and which may seem strange in the very same words our blessed Saviour used when he gave that Power to Peter and the other Apostles Nor is this all Their Oecumenical Council of Trent approves and by a Synodical Definition and Decree confirms all this And says further That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left All Priests His Vicars as Presidents and Judges who By the Power of the Keys should Pronounce Sentence of the Remission and retaining of Sins And this they there prove out of this very Place of Matthew from which they would and generally endeavor to prove the Popes Absolute Monarchical Supremacy And Power to Depose Kings and Emperors To omit all other Instances which are too many sure I am that Pope Innocent IV. builded his Power to Depose the Emperor Friderick upon this one Text We saith that Pope being Christ's Vicar and it being said to us in the Person of Peter whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. do Depose that Emperor and Absolve all His Subjects from their Oaths of Allegigance c. From the Premisses and Authorities above Cited I think 't is Evident 1. That in that Text Matth. 16. 19. The Power of the Keys was only promised but not Actually given to Peter 2. When it was really and de facto given him Matth. 18. 18. It was as well and as much given to all the other Apostles as to him as besides what is aforesaid is attested and expresly affirmed by Pope Gregory the Great in his Book of the Sacraments published by Hugo Menardus a Learned Benedictine Monck where Pope Gregory and he as Wise and Learned and as Infallible as those who follow him teaches them to pray thus O God who hast Committed the Power of Binding and Loosing To the Apostles c. He knew not it seems any Supremacy given to Peter by our blessed Saviour when he gave him Potestatem Clavium The Power of the Keys seeing the same Power was given to other Apostles who never claim'd any such Supremacy 3. Lastly I desire then to know by what Logick they can prove St. Peter's Supremacy over all the Apostles for having a Power the Power of the Keys which every Apostle had as well as He. 4. There is one place more and but one wherein the Power of the Keys is Actually given to Peter The words are these As my Father sent me so send I you And he breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Where 1. It is certain and confess'd That though the Power of the Keys be not here expresly nam'd yet to retain and remit here in John signifies the very same thing That to bind and loose in Matthew where only the Power of the Keys is named This the Trent Catechism and the Trent Fathers themselves must and do acknowledge as will manifestly appear by the Places cited in the Margent and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John allow it and tell us truly That remittere here in John is the very same with solvere to loose in Matthew and so retinere here the same with ligare in Matthew 2. And 't is as certain from the express words of the Text and the undoubted meaning of them that the Power of the Keys is here given Equally to all the Apostles as well as Peter For so the words of their Commission I send You mine Apostles and he Breathed on Them his Apostles whose sins Ye my Apostles retain c. The Authority and Power here mention'd is without distinction or difference of Degree Equally given to all to James and John and Jude as well as Peter 3. Nay more it is Confess'd and positively and truly affirm'd by a very Learned Popish Author That all the Apostles as well as Peter are by this Commission
and Judged that sufficient without going to Rome The Bishop of Rome in those days pretended to no more Supremacy or Infallibility in the Apostolical Church and Chair at Rome then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities If Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy then either all such Churches must be Supream which is impossible or none at all which is certainly true 3. But they say The Bishop of Rome is Peter ' s Successor and on this they principally and generally ground his Supremacy as derived to him Jure â—â—â—cessions and Jure Divino too by Divine Right and Succession Now if this be true if Succession to Peter carry Supremacy with it Then seeing they constantly say 1. That Peter was seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome 2. And that Euodius was his Successor there I desire to know why the Supremacy did not descend to Euodius his first and immediate Successor For admit that Peter had such Supremacy and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to some Successor both which are manifestly untrue yet seeing such Transmission of his Supremacy must be done either 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour Or 2. By some Act of Peter transmitting his Supremacy to his Successor at Rome and not to Euodius at Antioch it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour or Peter For if they can we will submit and give the Cause but if they cannot then seeing idem est non esse non apparere they must pardon our unbelief if we assent not to that which they cannot prove I say cannot prove there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years I might give more either expresly affirming or from which it may by good Consequence be deduced that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome more then to the Bishop of Antioch If any man think otherwise let him give us good proof of the contrary and we will give him thanks and the Cause 2. But admit that the Pope succeeds Peter and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri as his Successor which is evidently untrue yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Saviour before Peter was Bishop any where and by his own Appointment sat in our blessed Saviour's Place and Episcopal Chair as his Successor I say if this appear then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter so his Successor will be greater then the Pope and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor then the Pope can possibly have as Peter's Now for this let our Adversaries consider what Epiphanius says Thus James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop when our blessed Savioâ—r concredited and resign'd to him before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth And heâ— let it be consider'd 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is call'd a Bishop Vniversâ— Bishop of the whole Church with Monarchiâ—cal and Kingly Power 2. He was in a particulaâ— and peculiar way Bishop of the Jews he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them He was sent in Person only to them He Constituted a Church amongâ— them Ordain'd Apostles and Seventy otheâ— Inferior Ministers whom he sent to Preacâ— and do Miracles in Confirmation of their Doctrine he constantly preached the Gospel amongst them and did all those Acts a Bishop should do in his Diocese 3. And Jerusalem being the Metropolis of the Jews Epiphanius tells us that it was on Earth his Throne Thronus suus his Episcopal Seat or Chair where he usually was preach'd and did Miracles 4. He says That our blessed Saviour chose James before all the Rest even before Peter and concredited and resigned to him Thronum suum his Episcopal Seat and that James was Bishop of Jerusalem is attested by all Antiquity And this probably was the Reason 1. Why Paul names James as Bishop of Jerusalem before Peter 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles James and not Peter gave the definitive Sentence So that these things seem to me certain 1. That our blessed Saviour though Bishop of the Universal Church yet he had a Particular Episcopal Cure and Charge of the Jews As his Father was King of all the World yet Particularly of the Jews 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure 3. And if Epiphanius say true our blessed Saviour himself appointed him his Successor Let our Adversaries by so good Authority shew that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor either at Rome as some of them before mention'd only pretend or any where else and for my part let them take the Cause Otherwise if they cannot then we may evidently conclude That if James never did nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church though our blessed Saviour's Successor much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter Q. E. D. 4. But the Pope they say is Christ's Vicar and that he is or should be so we grant But we further say that many thousands besides him are Christ's Vicars as well and as much as he This has been manifestly proved before I shall only add that the Trent Fathers who far they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and so surely Infallible expresly say and Synodically define That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left all Priests his own Vicars to whom as to Presidents and Judges all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd And Aquinas and their Schoolmen say That in the Church the Bishop is Christ's Vicar and they prove it well from the express and plain words of the Apostle and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden a Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Annotations upon those Texts says the same thing And now if to be Christ's Vicar give any ground or pretence to Supremacy then all Bishops and Priests who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absolving and Retaining Sins every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope as he him So that any Argument drawn from this Title that he is Christ's Vicar to prove the Popes Supremacy is not only Inconsequent but Impertinent and indeed Ridiculous And yet upon this ground and another as Insignificant Pope Innocent the Fourth in their General Council at Lions Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick Seeing says the Pope there we are Christ's Vicar on Earth and it was in the Person of Peter said to us Whatsoever thou binds on Earth
shall be bound in Heaven we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Excommunicate all who shew him any favour or obey him as Emperor And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us That the Pope has by Divine Right not by any Human Constitutions that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction over the Vniversal Church as Peter's Successor sitting in his Chair and as Vicar of Christ. 5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence is That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They seem to be in Love with these words Dabo Tibi Claves c. For in their Offices for only two of St. Peter's Festivals they are repeated almost Twenty times But how Impertinent this is to prove any Supremacy much less their Papal Monarchy will evidently appear in that this Power of the Keys which they would appropriate to the Pope was given to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter as is proved before nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World For 1. So their own Roman Breviary published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth and afterwards revised by Clement the Eighth and Vrban the Eighth expresly says for having told us that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter it follows That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church 2. Their Trent Catechism having spoke of the Power of the Keys afterwards tells us to whom our blessed Saviour gave and concredited that Power before he Ascended into Heaven And it was To the Bishops and Presbyters So that Catechism publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius the Fifth And 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentick Form how they Ordain a Priest in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest in the very same words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you remit they are remitted And whose sins you retain they are retained 4. Lastly The Trent Fathers are yet if that be possible more express For speaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolution They declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys belong to any save The Bishops and Presbyters and who think those words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose remit and retain sins In which words the Council does I suppose Infallibly Declare at least in our Adversaries Opinion 1. That those two Texts which are cited in the Margent of the Council are to be understood of the Power of the Keys though in one of them that of John the Keys be not expresly named 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters but to none else neither to Lay-men nor any Inferior Orders By the Premisses I think it evident and confess'd by our Adversaries that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys as well as Peter and since they left the World every Bishop and Priest as well as the Pope Whence it further and manifestly follows That 't is impossible that the Bishop of Rome or any of his party should as they vainly indeavor prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys which is common and really possess'd by so many thousands beside himself For this is just as if Titius should brag that he is far richer then Sempronius because he has Five hundred pounds per Annum when Sempronius has an equal Estate and of the very same Value Or as if Sejus should say he had far greater Power then Cajus when the Power given them by the Emperor was equal and the same And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges that in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions received into the Body of their Canon Law Dabo Tibi Claves this Power of the Keys is laid as a Sandy and Insignificant Foundation on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Supremacy I shall Instance only in two though I might in many more 1. In that famous Decretal of Innocent the Third before cited wherein he impiously and ridiculously indeavors to prove that the Papal Dignity is as much greater then the Imperial as the Sun is greater than the Moon And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position he comes at last to this Dabo Tibi Claves to the Power of the Keys as the most known ground of his Supremacy 2. The second Instance is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth in the Council of Lions It is Extant in the Canon Law and two things there prefix'd to that most Impious Decretal 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council for a perpetual memory of it And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichristian Pride and Impiety 2. That the Pope can Depose the Emperor for lawful Causes And then in that Impious Decretal he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of the Keys which he says was given to him in Peter when our blessed Saviour said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven c. so he and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past applies that Power of the Keys which is purely spiritual to carnal and temporal ends and impious purposes And here it seems to me Considerable and I believe will seem so to pious and dis-interessed Persons that in former Roman Breviaries as also in our Portiforium or Breviary of Sarum and in the Missals of Salisbury and Hereford we have this Prayer 1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo Collatis Clavibus Regni Coelestis Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti Concede ut Intercessionis ejus Auxilio c. O God who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls grant that by the help of his Intercession c. Where it is evident that in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too the Power of the Keys is spiritual to bind mens souls if Impenitent and if Contrite and truly Penitent to loose them I say spiritual for edification and saving mens souls and not temporal for Deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of
Vniverse of the whole World it follows That all Kings and Emperors are his Subjects and he their Supream Lord and Sovereign and so far greater in Power then any one or all of them together And least we should mistake and undervalue his Papal Greatness Pope Innocent the Third told the Emperor of Constantinople and has told us in the Body of their approved and received Law That the Pope is as much greater then the Emperor as the Sun is greater then the Moon And here the Author of the Gloss Bernardus de Botono a great Lawyer but no good Astronmer tells us That the Sun is 47. times greater then the Moon and so by that Computation the Pope is 47. times greater then the Emperor This is pretty well and gives so vast a Magnitude to the Pope above the Emperor that a man would think it might satisfie his Ambition so that he needed not ask nor his greatest Flatterers give him more Yet they do give much more For in a Marginal Note on the said Chapter in their most Correct Editions of their Law we are told That the Sun is greater then the Moon Quinquagies Septies 57. times and so the Pope so much greater then the Emperor But this is not all Laurentius a Canonist in the same place tells us That it is evident that the Sun is 7744 ½ greater then the Moon and so the Pope omitting the Fraction Seaven thousand seaven hundred and forty four times greater then the Emperor This is so prodigiously erroneous and impious as none save their most Holy and Infallible Guide could be guilty of such Error and Impiety But a Learned Roman Catholick who understood Astronomy and the Magnitude of the Sun much better then the Pope or his Parasites seriously tells us that the Sun is greater then the Moon 6539. times And so by the Popes Logick and Decretal Definition and the Computation of his best Artists he must be 6539. times greater then the Emperor Monstrous Pride and Ignorance which is so far from proving him to be our blessed Saviours Vicar that it evidently proves him to be that Man of Sin the great Antichrist who exalts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Kings and Emperors Certainly Antichrist cannot exalt himself more then to declare to the World as the Pope here does in his Publick Laws and Constitutions that he is 6539. times greater then any King or Emperor So that although St. Paul and Peter too acknowledged the Emperors Power Supream and required that all men even the Pope if he were a man should conscienciously obey them though St. Paul appeal not to Peter but to Caesar as Supream Though Athanasius say That there lay no Appeal from the Emperor but to God and though Tertullian say That the Emperor was Solo Deo minor and the Bishops of Rome for almost One thousand years after our blessed Saviour acknowledged the Emperors their Sovereign Lords yet Hildebrand and his Successors have as above exalted themselves far above all that is call'd God and have that indelible Character of Antichrist Q. E. D. 2. And they further say That this Vniversal Monarchy is given him by God himself and so he has it not by any Human Right or Injust Usurpation but Jure Divino by the Law of God and a Right derived from him and this is said not once only nor by any private Person whose Authority might be question'd but many times in their Authentick Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent and revised and publish'd by the Authority and Command of three Popes successively so that we may be sure they approve it That Breviary has it thus speaking of Peter Thou art Prince of the Apostles And God hath Given Thee All the Kingdoms of the World These are the words of that Authentick Breviary approved and confirm'd by the Authority of those three Popes before mentioned as appears by their Bull prefix'd to the Edition and is now in publick use in their Church So that he Exalts himself as Universal Monarch over all the Kings and Kingdoms in the World and that as he impiously pretends by a Divine Right and the Donation of God himself And hence it is That not only the Canonists the constant and great Parasites of the Pope but even the Learned Divines of the Roman Church give the Pope and he Approves and Assumes such Extravagant and Blasphemous Titles as none but the Man of Sin who Exalts himself above all that is called God would approve To pass by many hundreds of the like nature I shall Instance only in one Stapleton an English man and a very Learned Professor of Divinity at Doway in his Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Gregory the Thirteenth calls that Pope The Highest Top and Prince of the Catholick Church The Master of the whole World and on Earth The Supream God or Deity Certainly â—he who approves and admits such Titles to be given him Exalts himself above all that is called God and so has the Character of Antichrist mention'd by the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. 4. And here though I intended it not I shall crave leave to add two or three Passages more which casually come in my way and memory and are very pertinent to our present purpose 1. The Gloss on their Canon Law tells us That the Pope is neither God nor Man but something more then Man And though this Impious and Blasphemous Gloss was Censured to be left out by the Master of the Sacred Pallace Yet Clement the Eighth thought otherwise and those words are still in the best Edition of the Canon Law only with this Note in the Margent Haec verba sunt sano modo intelligenda prâ—lata enim sunt ad Ostendendum Amplissimam Pontificis Rom. Potestatem But this Gloss is something modest though it make the Pope more then Man and being in Verse may have some Poetical Licence allow'd 2. But another Gloss in plain Prose expresly says That it is our Lord God the Pope For although in some Old Editions of the Canon Law it was only Our Lord the Pope yet now in the most Correct Editions of that Law confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth it is without any Qualification in the Margent our Lord God the Pope 3. And to make the Blasphemy full and evidently Antichristian Ant. Puccius in an Oration made by him in their General Lateran Council speaking to Pope Leo the Tenth says That the Rayes of His Divine Majesty did dazle his Eyes Impious and Antichristian Pride and Blasphemy yet approved at Rome and by themselves to their shame published to the World Nor is this all He pretends to and assumes an Infallibility and that of so high a Nature that all his Definitions and Determinations of Doubts whether è Cathedrâ or not whether in a General Council or out of it to be the
That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants But when this was heard at Rome the Pope and his Sacred Congregation as they call it Condemned that Negative Proposition as Heretical and Summon'd the Subscribers to Rome where Prisons and Censures as Father Caron tells us were prepared for them Whence it is Evident that to deny the Popes Power to Depose and Kill Protestant Princes is at Rome declared Heretical and therefore that he has a Power to Depose and Kill is a part of their Catholick Creed and believ'd three Whence it further follows that they do think such Killing of Protestants to be no Murder nor those who kill them out of Zeal to the Catholick Cause Murderers 5. When Raymundus Lullus a man famous in his time and after it had said and in his Writings published That it was unlawful and impious to kill and murder Hereticks for he had seen and heard of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses and such as at Rome were call'd Hereticks in and before his time Nic. Eymericus Inquisitor of Arragon complains of him and his Writings to Pope Gregory the Eleventh who in full Consistory with the Council of his Cardinals damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Hereticks 6. And Lastly Pope Leo the Tenth in his Oecumenical so they call it Lateran Council Sacro approbante Concilio with the Consent and Approbation of that Council declares That our blessed Saviour Did Institute Peter and his Successors his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of The Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that Whosoever would not as no true Protestant ever would or could was to be punished with Death The Pope was not pleased to tell us what Book of Kings for in their Vulgar Latin Version there are four Books of that name nor what Chapter or Verse he meant and he did wisely to conceal what Place in those Books he intended for had he nam'd any particular place though he pretended to Infallibility his folly would have much sooner appeared It is indeed ridiculous for any man to think that any thing said in those Books of Kings can prove that our blessed Saviour Constituted a Vicar General over his whole Christian Church with power to kill all who would not comply with him and that Peter and his Successors the Popes were the men seeing there is not one Syllable of all or any of this in any of the four Books of Kings Nor any Text from which it may with any sense or probability be deduc'd Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils Peter Crab Surius Binius Labbe c. supply'd that defect and told us what place Pope Leo meant and from which he or they could prove the Popes Power to kill all who comply'd not with his Commands I know that Crab Surius and Binius though Labbe has omitted it as Impertinent have in their Editions of the Councils cited in their Margents Deut. 17. for a proof of that Erroneus and Impious Position it seems their Infallible Judge mistook Kings for Deuteronomy or that they could find nothing in any Book of Kings for the Popes purpose But they name not the Verse though I believe it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean Where 't is said That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge That Man shall Dye This I say is altogether impertinent as to the proof of the Popes Position For admit which is manifestly untrue that by Priest here the High Priest only was meant yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say Whosoever disobey'd the Sentence of the High Priest in the Jewish Church must be put to death Ergo Whoever disobeys the Pope in the Christian Church must be so too This I say is Inconsequent for the Priests in the Jewish Church not only the High Priest but other Priests and Levites by the express Law of God had as Judges in many Cases Power of Life and Death but in the Gospel our blessed Saviour left no such Power to his Apostles and their Successors Excommunication is the highest Punishment Peter or any or all the Apostles could inflict by any Authority from our blessed Saviour in the Christian Church and this Power succeeded Intersection or putting to death in the Judaical Church So St. Augustin expresly tells us and to him I refer the Reader By the Premisses I think it may appear that if after the Popes Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth any of her Popish Subjects Laity or Clergy Regular or Secular had by taking Arms publickly or by Poyson or Pistol Privately taken away her life according to their approved Principles it had been no Rebellion Treason or Murder but in their Opinion an Action Just and Innocent But this though too much is not all their Error and Impiety rises higher For 4. Had any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects after the Popes Excommunication kill'd her that Execrable Fact had been so far from being Murder that in their opinion it had been an Action not only Indifferent or Morally good but Meritorious In the year 1586. which was the Nine and twentieth of Elizabeth in the Colledge of Rhemes Giffard Dr. of Divinity Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson Priests had so possess'd the English Seminaries with a belief of this Doctrine That John Savage willingly and gladly vowed to kill the Queen The Story is in Cambden an Historian of unquestionable truth and fidelity After this Walpoole the English Jesuite perswades Edward Squire that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen tells him it might easily be done by Poysoning the Pomel of her Sadle gives him the Poyson Squire undertakes it Walpoole blesseth him and promises him Eternal Salvation and so having sworn him to Secresie sends him into England where notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings he was taken confess'd all this and was Executed in the year 1598. And Camdben there tells us That a Pestilent Opinion as he truly calls it was got amongst the Popish Party even amongst their Priests That to take away Kings Excommunicate was Nothing Else but to Weed the Cockle out of the Lords Field It is true none of those impious and damnable Designs had their desir'd Effect God Almighty protecting that good Queen it being impossible that any Power or Policy should prevail against his Providence yet the Matter of Fact confessed by themselves or evidently proved by Legal Witnesses manifestly shews that they thought killing the Queen for the benefit of their Catholick Cause was a Meritorious Work which they designed to do and had their Ability been Equal to their Impiety would have done 2. Nor was this the private opinion of some Priests and Jesuits only but the definitive Sentence of several Popes their Infallible and Supream Judges publickly declared and that we may be sure they are obligatory
Catena Nicetae Serrarum Episcopi ad Matth. 16. 18. vide Catenam Graecam in Matth. per Possinum Jesuitam Cap. 16. 18. Hilarius Pictaniens De Trinitate l. 2. p. 25. Edit Erasmi Theophylact in Matth. 16. 18. x Index Librorum Prohibit Expurg Madriti 1667. In Desid Erasmo p. 289. Col. 1. y Super hanc Petram i. e. super fidei Tuae soliditatem Can. loquitur 18. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. verbo Petram in Glossâ z Super hanc Petram quam Confessus es i. e. Christum Lyranus in Matth. 16. 18. a Super hanc Petram i. e. Christum in quem credis Glossa Interlinearia in dictum Locum b So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psalmos Poenitential Tom. 2. Operum Paris 1619. pag. 908. D. Christus est Petra à qua Petrus Nomen Accepit Super Quam se aedificaturum Ecclesiam dixit Quod Ecclesia nullis Persecutionibus sit superanda Ipse Super Quem aedificata est Ostendit cum ait Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt contra eam So Strabo Fuldensis in his Ordin Gloss. on Matth. 16. 18. circa Ann. 840. And after them Lyranus in the Place cited who though he was a Franciscan Frier and flourished almost Four hundred years ago and in many things as those times were Popish enough yet he was not come so far as to make Peter or any but Christ the Rock on which the Church was built And again on the 1. Cor. 3. 11. Solus Christus est Fundamentum Ecclesiae quod ex se firmitatem stabilitatem habet And the Gloss on their own Canon Law says That Christ was the Rock for Boniface 8. in that famous Extravagant Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. Indeavouring to prove the Papal Supremacy from several Places in Scripture he adds That the Authority given to Peter and his Successors by our blessed Saviour was not Human but Divine Haec Authoritas licet homini data non humana sed potius Divina ore divino Petro data Successoribu c. The Gloss on these words Est autem haec Authoritas p. 191. says thus Haec Authoritas est Divina quia firmata est in Petra firma in Christo qui erat verus Deus quod sit Divina quia fundata in eo patet ex Evangelio quia Christus loquebatur cum dixit super hanc Petram id est super meipsum qui sum Petra qui significor per Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Ita Gloss. verbo Est autem haec Authoritas Ad Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. Extrav Commun c Super hanc Petram i. e. Super Ipsum Petrum seu Petram seu Cepham vel Super Fidem Petri quae est Catholica Dr. Hen. Holden in Annotat. in Nov. Testam Paris 1660. ad Matth. 16. 18. ad 7. Matth. vers 25. d Synodus Statuit praemittendam esse Confessionem Fidei Symbolum fidei quo Romana Ecclesia utitur tanquam Principium ac Fundamentum firmum ac Vnicum contra quod portae Inferi nunquam praevalebunt Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. Feb. 4. Ann. 1546. e Matth. 16. 18. f Per Petram Confessionem Fidei intelligunt Chrysostomus Cyrillus Hilarius Rom. Pontifices Leo magnus Agatho Nicolaus Adrianus primus in suis Decretalibus Stapleton Princep Fidei Doct. Demonstr Controvers 2. l. 6. c. 2. p. 207. 208. g Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico Tibi quia Tues Petrus Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Super Illum Vnum aedificat Ecclesiam Catechis Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus Part. 1. Cap. 10. de 9. Symboli Art §. 12. p. 115. Edit Paris 1635. h Matth. 7. 24. 25. i 1 Joh. 5. 4. 5. k Orat Sacerdos ut Sacra Symbola Omnibus cedant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Lit. Jac. Graec. Paris 1560. p. 20. vid. Fabr. Stapulensem in Matth. 16. 18. So Pope Nicol. 2. Ecclesia super Petram fidei fundata Gratian. Can. Omnes 1. Dist. 22. And the Apostle in his Canonical Epistle Jude 20. adviseth all to build up themselves on their most holy Faith l Isa. 28. 16. m Edit Rom. 1590. n Edit Rom. 1592. o Bellarmine in Praefat. ad Libr. de Pontif Rom. vid. R. Crakanth Contra Spalatens Cap. 81. §. 3. p. 612. p Vid. Hieronym in Isaiae 28. vers 16. Isiodor Clarius in 1. Cor. 3. 10. Fundatissimum Fundamentum Christus q 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. and Act. 4. 11. r Rom. 9. 33. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 4. s Matth. 21. 42. But though Paul and Peter and our blessed Saviour himself do expound the word Rock on which the Church is built not to be meant of Peter but Christ the Messiah as appears by the foregoing Texts yet Maldonate the Jesuit whose words I shall cite anon says That 't is very far from sense so to expound it Maldonate in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. And yet Card. Cusanus says That Christ was that Rock Operum p. 826. And so Cyrill in the Aurea Catenâ Graec. Patrum in Psalmos David 50. per Dan. Barbaram Patriarcham Aquileiensem Venet. 1569. ad vers 2. Psal. 39. aliâs 40. p. 400. 401. So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psal. Poenitent Tom. 2. p. 980. D. So Chrysostom c. t 1. Pet. 2. 5. u Eph. 2. 20. x Rev. 21. 14. y Noveritis Symbolum hoc esse Fundamentum super quod aedificium Ecclesiae surrexit Ang. lib. 3. de Symbolo ad Catechumen Tom. 9. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact in Matth. 16. 17. 18. a Alcazar ' s words are these Censco Apostolos ideo fundatores Ecclesiae dici quia fidei summam ediderunt eff usâ— Cruoris Testimonio necnon praedicatione Miraculiâ— in hominum animis inseverunt Corn. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 112. Col. 2. C. b Concil Trident. Sess. 3. Apostolicum Symbolum vocat firmum atque Vnicum Fundamentum Contra quod portae Inferi non praevalebunt Idem ibid. Col. 2. E c Tale Fundamentum à Paulo fuit Jactum 1 Cor. 3. 10. in Saptens Architectus Fundamenum posui Idem ibidem d Idem dicâ—nt alia Concilia Paâ—res Ibid. e Sunt inter veteres Authores qui Interpretantur super hanc Petram i. e. Super Hanc Fidem aut Super hanc Fidei Confessionem quâ me Filium esse Dei vivi dixisti ut Hilarius Greg Nyssenus Chrysostomus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Ambrosius in Epistolas Pauli c. Maldonat in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. f Longiùs etiam à Sensu Reccdens Augustinus interpretatur super hanc Petram i. e. Super meipsum quia Petra erat Christus Maldonat ibid. g Certum est apud Omnes haec 12. Fundamenta Rev. 21. 14. significare 12. Apostolos ipsorum enim humeris quasi innixus Ecclesiae murus recumbit Ideo enim eorum nomina fundamentis Inscripta sunt ut significetur Ipos esse
for a thousand years after our blessed Saviour which maintain'd the same Doctrine Marca did as is evidently proved by a Learned Sorbon Doctor Edm. Rechier In Hist. Conc. General l. 1. Edit Colon. Ann. 1680. The design of the whole Book is against the Popes Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility Vide dicti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. c. o I know that some of them eminent for Learning and Dignity in their Church say That our blessed Saviour did give Peter power to transfer his great Authority to his Successor and only to him not to any of the other Apostles But this they say only without any pretence of proof And I commend their Prudence not to attempt Impossibilities Johan Franciscus Bordinus Archbishop of Avignion has published his Opinion in these words Christus Vniversale Totius Ecclesiae Caput Petrum Constituit qui suas Vices in Terris ageret Quo quidem in Munere si dum viveret Aequales mark that habuit caeteros Coapostolos Nulli tamen Eorum quod à Domino accipissent jus per Successionem in alios transferendi facult as fuit Soli Petro Id Promissum Soli Petro Id Traditum ut Petra esset post Christum Ecclesiae fundamentum Ita Johan Fran. Bordinus Archiepiscopus Avenionensis in Serie Gestis Roman Pontif. ad Clement Papam 8. ad Annum Christ. 34. Tiberij 18. 2. p Petrus Romae Sedem suam Jubente Domino Collocavit Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. q Probatur Roman Pontificem Petro Succedere in Pontificatu Ecclesiae Vniversae Ex Divino Jure Ratione Successionis Bellarmin Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Primum ergo Papa in Petri Cathedrâ Sedet summum in eo dignitatis gradum Jurisdictionis amplitudinem non Humanis Constitutionibus sed Divinitus datum agnoscit est Pater Vnixersalis Ecclesiae Petri Successor Christi Vicarius c. Catechism Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit Paris 1635. r Bellarm. Locis proxime citatis ut alij passim And Pope Pius 5. in this his Impious Bull. §. 1. Christus Ecclesiam Catholicam uni soli Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine Tradidit Gubernandam s Nullum Christi ea dere Decretum Extat So A Lapide Confesses in Apoc. 17. vers 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. t Romano Pontifici Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis Successori ac Christi Vicario veram Obedientiam spondeo ae juro Vid. Bullam Pii 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei in Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. p. 452. Edit Antv. 1633. u Hanc Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest quam in Praesenti profiteor teneo eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Constantissime retinere c. Spondeo Voveo Juro Ibidem x 1 Pet. 5. 13. y Primam Petri Epistolam Romae Scriptam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aiunt quam Petrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio z Curiose sciscitabar said Papias à Senioribus quid Petrus quid Jacobus dicere soliâ—ì essent Néque ex Bibliorum Lectione tantam me utilitatem capere posse Existimabam quantam ex hominum vivâ voce Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. p. 111. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Traditione non scriptâ habuit novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas praedicationes aliáque Fabulis propiora inter quae Mille Annorum spatium post resurrectionem fore dicit Euseb. ibid. p. 112. b Ita opinatus videtur Papias ex male Intellectis Apostolorum narrationibus Fuit enim Mediocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus Euseb. ibidem Lit. c. c Plerisque tamen post Ipsum Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus Ejusdem Erroris occasionem praebuit hominis vetustate Sententiam suam tuentibus Ibidem D. Ita etiam Nicephorus Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 252. D. Object d Colon. Allobr 1612. e Paris 1659. f Papias eadem aetate Celebris fuit Vir Imprimis disertus eruditus ac Scripturarum peritus Euseb Hist. lib. 3. cap. 36. Edit Valesij Sed in Edit Christopherson Cap. 35. Grae. 30. Latinae Versionis g Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus Ibidem h Papias was a friend and familiar of St. Polycarpe Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. and Polycarpe suffered Martyrdom Anno Christ. 167. Baronius Annotat. ad Martyrolog Romanum ad diem Jan. 26. p. 81. Col. 1. Answer i Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum Episcopus Papias Similiter Apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens Ruffin l. 3. c. 35. in Excuso Rhenarci Basil. 1528. k In Cod. MS. Ruffini est Lib. 3. cap. 32. l Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codicibus Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij c. 36. p. 55. m Non dubito quin haeâ— verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt praeter Eusebij mentem Sementiam Valesius Ibidem n Quomodo fieri potest ut Eusebius Papiam hic appellet virum doctissimum scripturarum peritissimum cum in fine Libri affirmat diserte Papiam Mediocri Ingenio praeditum Planéque Rudem ac Simplicem Valesius Ibidem o Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39. p Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39. p. 112. Valesij Edit vide Nicephor lib. 3. c. 20. q Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C. r Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. Hieronym de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor l. 3. c. 20. s Joh. 20. 30. 31. 21. 25. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas ac praedicationes u Scaliger in Annotat in Joh. 18. 31. Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex quâ scribit Epistolam suam Vid. Johan Rainoldum contra Hartum c. x Tametsi Veteres Existimaverint Petrum vocabulo Babylonis signisicasse Vrbem Romam probabilis est Scaligeri Conjectura qui ex Ipsa Babylone scriptam à Petro putat Epistolam hanc ad Judaeos dispersos c. Petrus de Marca Archiepiscopus Parisiensis De Concordia Sacerd. Imperij l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59. Tom. 2. y Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi 45. §. 16. 17. z Haec Sententia refelli videtur ex Actis Apostolorum ex quibus constat Petrum in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse usque ad ultimum Annum Agrippae c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34. a Act. 15. c. b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. c In Chronico Alexandrino Concilium Hierosolymitanum refertur Anno Claudij 6. Christi 48. melius dixisset 7 â— sic enim cuncta egregié conveniunt c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. d Gal. 1. 18.
only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he gâ—tâ—less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of