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
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
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.
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
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
was two whole years at Rome Converted and Established a Church there but it cannot appear by Scripture that Peter was ever there 4. The Care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good government of All the Churches without any Authority Leave or Commission from Peter no such thing ever said of Peter either in Scripture or primitive and pure Antiquity 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans Peter did no such thing Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expresly told us 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed and Commission'd Peter to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and such were the Romans 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome Converting and Establishing a Church there 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans to Confirm them in that Faith he had preach'd amongst them I say had all these things been in Scripture expresly said of Peter our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would and with far more reason and probability might have asserted Peter's Supremacy and his Roman Episcopacy and that the Pope was and is his Successor But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter and every one of them expresly said of Paul it is Evident that there is far more reason and probability and that grounded upon express Scripture that Paul was Bishop of Rome and not Peter and so the Pope might be his Successor And yet our Adversaries reject Paul and will have Peter their first Bishop though some of them impiously say our blessed Saviour was their first Bishop That St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome notwithstanding all the former things said of him in Scripture we believe and know and willingly grant But on the other side to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture either in express terms as they are of Paul or by Equivalence or any just Consequence this we say is very irrational For in things Moral or Historical and of such we are now speaking which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration the highest Prudential Motives and Probabilities will and ought to carry the Assent of all wise men and therefore seeing it is deny'd and justly too that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome though the Probabilities grounded on Scripture that he was so be far greater then Peter can pretend to for our Adversaries to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome must be and is evidently irrational If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so But when they would magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy having no better Arguments they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome and his See and of some Priviledges which they take or mistake rather to be peculiar to the Popes such as these 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories and Canons is called Apostolicus 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. I confess that these and many such Particulars have been urged and as pertinent stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls their Decretal Constitutions and Epistles and generally by all their Party especially the Clergy Secular and Regular whose great and principal Interest it is to maintain the Papal Supremacy for if that fail they irrecoverably fall with it In some Centuries past while gross Ignorance and Tyranny benighted and overaw'd this Western Part of the World such Arguments did their Business For few could and the danger being very great few or none durst Answer them But after Luther arose and Learning reviv'd all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know that all the Arguments they did or could bring from such Topicks were not only Inconsequent but indeed impertinent and ridiculous That this may not be gratis dictum I shall indeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances and I hope Effect it that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges do or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy and Papal Monarchy they now so earnestly contend for And here 1. It is to be observed that the word Apostolicus which for some Ages last past the Pope has Assumed and his Flatterers given him as peculiar to himself was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops So Alcuinus Flaccus tells us That when a Bishop was Elected they sent him ad Apostolicum that he might Consecrate him The Learned Archbishop of Paris tells me this and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century in the time of Gregorius Turonensis who was made Bishop about the Year 572. but afterwards That Title was appropriated to the Pope Now I desire to know of our Adversaries how The Title being Appropriated to the Pope does make more for his Supremacy then it did for the Archbishops when it was common to them all 2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica we grant Because we are sure St. Paul though not as Bishop sate there But that Peter ever was there neither we nor our Adversaries are or can be sure But it is and by our Adversaries must be granted too That Jerusalem Antioch and other Churches besides Rome were Sedes Apostolicae and Ecclesiae Apostolicae and eo Nomine were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church But the Bishops of none of them then did or could pretend to any Supremacy much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy And why Rome should more then they when our Adversaries can and will give which as yet they never did any Just and Cogent Reason I shall submit Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches such as Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi Rome c. and tells us That Cathedrae Apostolorum the Chairs of the Apostoles were then in those Apostolical Churches That Bishops presided in them that if they had great Curiosity and Care of their Salvation they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Churches He sends them not all to Rome and Peter's Chair there But saith he if thou art near Macedonia thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to If in Asia Ephesus If in Achaia Corinth If thou art near Italy thou hast Rome to Address to He knew no Supremacy or Infallibility annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome more then to Paul's at Corinth or Philippi He directs them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them
was 25. years Bishop of Rome and actually transferred that Power to his Successor there or that our blessed Saviour ever had or exercis'd such a terrene and temporal power as they pretend the Pope as his Vicar has from him I say let them make all or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture and I will confess and retract my error Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal when I require Scripture proof For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right and this their Popes Canonists and Divines with great noise and confidence but no reason endeavour to prove from Scripture miserably mistaken and misapply'd I know that their late Jesuitical Methodists so much magnify'd by their Party require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory c. by express words of Scripture not admitting of Consequences however deduced from plain Texts as Premisses This method of theirs being irrational and demonstrated so to be I shall not tye them too But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture or by good Consequences deduced from it or what they pretend to Vniversal and Apostolical Tradition I shall admit the proof Nay I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further and if that be possible fairer offers 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever that any Christian Church in the World acknowledg'd or the Church of Rome her self assumed and publickly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy as now they pretend to for 1000. years after our B. Saviour and for my own part I will confess and retract my Error 2. Let them prove by any such concluding reason that any Church in the World Eastern or Western Greek or Latin did acknowledge what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for the Popes Infallibility and his Supremacy over all General Councils for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour and for my part Cedat Jülus Agris manus dabimus captivas I will retract what here I have affirmed and be what I hope I never shall be their Proselyte To Conclude I have no more to say my Adversaries will think I have said too much save only to desire the Readers who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction to read and consider the Margent as well as the Text. In this they have my Positions and the proofs of them in plain English In the Margent the Authorities and Authors I rely upon in their own words and the Language in which they writ and I have for the Readers ease not my own cited not only the Authors and their Books but the Chapter Paragraph Page and mostly the Editions of them That so the Reader may with more ease find the places quoted and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright It is notoriously known that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils many spurious Decretals and supposititious Tracts under the names of Primitive Fathers and ancient Bishops that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate Councils and thousands of other Authors making them by adding and substracting words or Sentences say what they never meant or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say and this they themselves have without shame or honesty publickly own'd in their Expurgatory Indices and after all this fraud and falsification of Records these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors are continually produced by them for proofs of their Errors against Protestants who well know and as many sober men of their own Communion justly condemn such impious Roman Arts Nec tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Christus eget Truth needs no such forg'd and false Medium's to maintain it nor will any honest man use them Sure I am I have not in this Discourse built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony nor of any supposititious or spurious ones The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted and rely upon are drawn from Scripture the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils or which ad hominem must be valid from their own Councils the Popes Bulls their Canon Law their Casuists Schoolmen Summists the Trent Catechism the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church their approved and received Publick Offices such as their Missal Breviary Ritual Pontifical c. which Authorities if I do not misquote or mistake their meaning are and to them must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them But let the Evidence of the Testimonies and the Authority of the Authors quoted be what it will I have little hope that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn firmly to believe their new Trent Creed the whole Body of Popish Errors to their last breath and to Anathematize and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it For while they are possess'd with these Principles it may be truly said of them what was said of the Luciferian Hereticks in St. Hierome Facilius cos Vinci posse quam persuaderi you may sooner bassle then perswade them They will in despite of Premisses hold the Conclusion nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholick Cause However that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth with a firm belief and in dangerous times upon undanted and pious profession of it is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England and her Adherents with an Addition of other Punishments Pius Bishop Servant to God's Servants for a perpetual memorial of the matter HE that reigneth on High to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth committed one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church out of which there is no Salvation to one alone upon Earth namely to Peter the Prince of the Apostles and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome to be governed in fulness of Power Him alone he made Prince over all People and all Kingdoms to pluck up destroy scatter consume plant and build that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit and present them spotless and umblameable to their Saviour Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church do spare no pains labouring with all earnestness that Unity and the Catholick Religion which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Children's
Faith and for our amendment suffered to be punished with so great Afflictions might be preserved uncorrupt But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power there is now no place left in the whole World which they have not assayed to corrupt with their most wicked Doctrines Amongst others Elizabeth the pretended Queen of England a Slave of Wickedness lending thereunto her helping hand with whom as in a Sanctuary the most pernicious of all men have found a Refuge This very Woman having seized on the Kingdom and monstrously usurping the place of Supream Head of the Church in all England and the chief Authority and Jurisdiction thereof hath again brought back the said Kingdom into miserable destruction which was then newly reduced to the most Catholick Faith and good Fruits Sect. 2. For having by strong hand inhibited the exercise of the true Religion which Mary lawful Queen of famous memory had by the help of this See restored after it had been formerly overthrown by Henry the Eighth a Revolter therefrom and following and embracing the Errors of Hereticks she hath removed the Royal Council consisting of the English Nobility and filled it with obscure men being Hereticks oppressed the Embracers of the Catholick Faith placed impious Preachers Ministers of Iniquity abolished the Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers Fastings choice of Meats unmarried Life and the Catholick Rites and Ceremonies Commanded Books to be read in the whole Realm containing manifest Heresie and impious Mysteries and Institutions by her self entertained and observed according to the Prescript of Calvin to be likewise observed by her Subjects presumed to throw Bishops Parsons of Churches and other Catholick Priests out of their Churches and Benefices and to bestow them and other Church Livings upon Hereticks and to determine of Church Causes prohibited the Prelates Clergy People to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey the Precepts and Canonical Sanctions thereof compelled most of them to condescend to her wicked Laws and to abjure the Authority and Obedience of the Bishop of Rome and to acknowledge her to besole Lady in Temporal and Spiritual matters and this by Oath imposed Penalties and Punishments upon those which obeyed not and exacted them of those which persevered in the Unity of the Faith and their Obedience aforesaid cast the Catholick Prelates and Rectors of Churches in Prison where many of them being spent with long languishing and sorrow miserably ended their lives All which things seeing they are manifest and notorious to all Nations and by the gravest Testimony of very many so substantially proved that there is no place at all left for Excuse Defence or Evasion Sect. 3. We seeing that impieties and wicked actions are multiplied one upon another moreover that the persecution of the faithful affliction for Religion groweth every day heavier heavier through the instigation and means of the said Elizabeth because we understand her Mind to be so hardned and indurate that she hath not only contemned the godly Requests and Admonitions of Catholick Princes concerning her healing and conversion but also hath not so much as permitted the Nuncios of this See to cross the Seas into England are strained of necessity to betake our selves to the Weapons of Justice against her not being able to mitigate our sorrow that we are drawn to take punishment upon one to whose Ancestors the whole State of Christendom hath been so much bounden Being therefore supported with his Authority whose pleasure it was to place Us though unable for so great a burthen in this Supream Throne of Justice we do out of the fulness of our Apostolick power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth being an Heretick and a favourer of Hereticks and her Adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of Anathema and to be cut off from the Unity of the Body of Christ. Sect. 4. And moreover we do declare Her to be deprived of her pretended Title to the Kingdom aforesaid of all Dominion Dignity and Priviledge whatsoever Sect. 5. And also the Nobility Subjects and People of the said Kingdom and all others which have in any sort sworn unto her to be forever absolved from any such Oath and all manner of Duty of Dominion Allegiance and Obedience As we also do by Authority of these presents absolve them and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended Title to the Kingdom and all other things abovesaid And we do Command and Interdict all and every the Noblemen Subjects people and others aforesaid that they presume not to obey her or her Monitions Mandates and Laws And those which shall do the contrary We do innodate with the like Sentence of Anathema Sect. 6. And because it were a matter of too much difficulty to convey these presents to all places wheresoever it shall be needful our will is that the Copies thereof under a publick Notaries hand and sealed with the Seal of an Ecclesiastical Prelate or of his Court shall carry altogether the same credit with all people Judicial and Extrajudicial as these presents should do if they were exhibited or shewed Given at Rome at St. Peters in the Year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1570. the Fifth of the Calends of May and of our Popedom the Fifth year Damnatio Excommunicatio Elizabethae Reginae Angliae eique Adhaerentium cum aliarum poenarum Adjectione Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam Rei memoriam REgrans in Excelsis cui data est Omnis in Coelo in Terra Potestas unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam extra quam nulla est salus soli in terris videlicet Apostolorum Principi Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Potestatis plenitudine tradidit Gubernandam Hunc unum super omnes Gentes omnia Regna Principem constituit qui evellat destruat dissipet disperdat plantet aedisicet ut fidelem populum mutuae Charitatis nexu constrictum in unitate Spiritus contineat salvumque incolumem suo exhibeat salvatori Sect. 1. Quo quidem in munere obeundo Nos ad praedictae Ecclesiae gubernacula Dei Benignitate vocati nullum laborem intermittimus omni operà contendentes ut ipsa Vnitas Catholica Religio quam illius Auctor ad probandam suorum fidem correctionem nostram tantis procellis conslictari permisit integra conservetur Sed Impiorum numerus tantum potentia invaluit ut nullus jam in Orbe locus sit relictus quem illi pessimis doctrinis corrumpere non tentârint adnitente inter caeteros flagitiorum servâ Elizabeth praetensâ Angliae Reginâ ad quam veluti ad asylum omnium infestissimi profugium invenerunt Haec eadem Regno occupato supremi Ecclesiae capitis locum in omni Angliâ ejusque praecipuam Auctoritatem atque Jurisdictionem monstruose sibi usurpans regnum ipsum jam tum ad Fidem Catholicam bonam frugem reductum rursus in exitium miserum revocavit Sect. 2.
would not be mistaken I do not say that all who now do or for this Six hundred years last past have liv'd in the Communion of the Church of Rome either do or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris and many in other Countries have publickly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them Especially in Germany in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. c. not only private Persons but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depositions of their Emperors not only Injust and Impious but Antichristian I grant also That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum if some have rightly told the Number has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent yet I shall neither deny nor doubt but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome who dislike this Doctrine But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome so long as her Governing and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it For 1. Father Caron himself tells us that notwithstanding his Book and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings The Divines of Lovane The Pope's Nuncio the Cardinals four or five Popes Paulus V. Pius V. Alexander VII Innocentius X. he might easily have reckon'd many more did condemn his Doctrine The Inquisitors damn'd his Book and his Superiors Excommunicate him 2. It is confessed That the Supream Infallible Power of their Church resides either in the Pope or Council or both together And 't is also certain That their Popes in their approved and in publick use received Canon Law in their Authentick Bulls publish'd by themselves in their General Councils and with their Consent have approved and for this Six hundred years last past many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings nor has the Church of Rome I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it as doubtless she would had she indeed disliked it Quae non prohibet cum possit jubet If any man think otherwise and can really shew me that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake and be thankful to him for a Civility which at present I really believe I shall never receive However Grata supervenient quae non sperantur 3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius V. and his Predecessors in the like Cases calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth The next Query will be What that hard word signifies and what they mean by it in their Bulls For the Solution of which doubt and Satisfaction to the Query 1. I take it to be certain and confess'd That the word Damnum from whence Damnation comes signifies a diminution or loss of some good things had and enjoyed before or of a right to future good things and then Damnation as to our present Case will be a judicial sentence which by way of punishment imposes such loss and diminution 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here as loss of Honours Liberty Lands or Life or of Spiritual and Eternal things as Heaven and Salvation hereafter so the Damnation also according to the Nature of the sentence and the mischief intended by it may be Temporal or Eternal or both if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal 3. I say then and I hope to make it evident that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull and Excommunication so far as the malice and injustice of an Usurped Power could endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen was not only Temporal but also Spiritual and Eternal This the word Damnation in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title of the Bull in their Popish Construction intends and signifies For the Temporal mischiefs intended to be brought upon that Good Queen there is no question they are all particularly named in the Bull it self as we shall see anon For the Spiritual that is a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excommunication is now to be proved And here it is to be Considered 1. That they constantly say and having strong Delusion possibly may believe it That Hereticks and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull dying Excommunicate as that Queen did and all true Protestants do are Eternally Damn'd For 1. A very great Canonist of our own Nation while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here tells us That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil And for farther proof of this he Cites Gratian and their Canon Law and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian who tells us in another Canon That Excommunication is a Damnation to Eternal Death And John Semeca the Glossator gives us their meaning of it That it is certainly true when the Person Excommunicate is incorrigible and contemns the Excommunication as for my part I really do contemn all their Excommunications as Bruta fulmina which neither do nor can hurt any honest Protestant so that by their Injust Law and most uncharitable Divinity not only Queen Elizabeth but all Protestants who are every Year Excommunicated by the Pope in their Bulla Coenae Domini are Eternally damned and that è Cathedra A Sentence Erroneous and Impious and though it be the Popes whom they miscall Infallible inconsistent with Truth or Christian Charity 2. But we have both for Learning and Authority a far greater Author than Lindwood or Gratian and in our days long after them I mean Cardinal Baronius who tells us That Pope Gregory VII did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd And for this he Cites Pope Gregory's own Epistles who surely best knew his own mind and the meaning of his own Decree 3. But we have greater Authors and Authority for this than Baronius for Pope Paschal II. tells us That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council and adds That by the Judgment of the whole Church he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema And after this Pope Paul III. Damns that 's the word and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII and all his Favourers and Adherents And we smite them saith he with the Sword of an Anathema Malediction and Eternal Damnation In the Year 1459. Pius II. with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council at Mantua Excommunicates and Damns all those even Kings and Emperors who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council and that they shall be punish'd as Traytors and
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
Word of God So a Learned Popish Author tells us That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word the Scriptures 2. His unwritten Word Traditions 3. His explained or declared Word when Scripture or Traditions are declared and explained by the Pope whether in or out of a Council And he says That this Last word of God the Popes Definitions and Explications is the most approved and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it Though this be much yet not all For the Pope does not only pretend to and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy over all the Kingdoms of the World but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them that he can parte inconsultâ give away Kingdoms pro Arbitrio to whom he pleases A Memorable and for Papal Pride and Injustice a Prodigious Instance we have of this in Pope Alexander the Sixth who at one Clap gave to Ferdinand and Elizabeth King and Queen of Castile and their Heirs for ever All the West-Indies from Pole to Pole and all the Isles about them which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd and the Azores with all their Dominions Cities Castles Villages all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them And this he says he gives of his own meer Liberality by Power deriv'd from Peter and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever Kings and Emperors by name who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies given to Ferdinand by him without the leave and licence of the said Ferdinand Here we see the Pope gives away almost half the World from the true Owners Causa incognita inaudita indicta the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him If it be said They were Pagan Idolaters Grant that Yet 1. What they all were he neither did nor could know 2. If they really were such as probably they were yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ a Pagan and Idolater may jure naturae have as just a Temporal Right to his Estate as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time and yet he Commands them to give to Caesar the things which were Caesars Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety and to which he had a right and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute and other things due to him But I hope this will not be deny'd For if none but pious men and true Christians have any just Right to what they possess it will I fear go hard with his Holyness and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony or any other thing he does possess And therefore if he Impartially consider it he may find some reason if not for Truths sake which with him is not always a prevailing Motive yet for his own to be in this of my opinion By the Premisses I hope it may and does appear That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshipped and so really has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast that Man of Sin and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture 4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion many Excellent Persons both for Learning and Piety have said as much and some have given us a Catalogue of their Testimonies I shall say nothing of the Fathers many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation some of them I have Cited before and Schardius in the Place last Quoted has more Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists or the Reformed Churches since Luther who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist especially the Church of England as appears both by her ablest Writers and her Authentick Homilies confirmed by the Kings Supream Authority in Convocations and Parliaments Omitting all these which yet were abundantly sufficient to shew that I am not singular in this Opinion I shall only of very many more give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome And here 1. The Emperor Frederick the Second in a Letter to the King of France complaining of the Prodigious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire and ruin him he says That he Indeavour'd to build the Tower of Babylon against him And that we may know what and whom he meant by Babylon in another Epistle to the King and Nobility of France he Complains of the horrid Injuries and Injustice done him by the Pope and his Party he calls them the Elders of Babylon c. 2. A faithful Historian speaking of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seaventh and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety tells us That in those times Most Men both Privately and Publickly curs'd Hildebrand call'd him Antichrist that under the Name and Title of Christ he did the work of Antichrist that he sat in Babylon in the Temple of God and as if he had been a God Exalted himself above all that is worshipped c. And much more to the same purpose abundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times who were neither Lutherans nor by the Roman Church then reputed Hereticks And afterward speaking of the same Hildebrand we are told That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaventy years before that time when that was said under a colour and shew of Religion He begun the War with the Emperor which his Successors continued to that Day till the time of Friderick the Second and Pope Gregory the Ninth where we have many things more concerning the Prodigious Pride Impiety and Tyranny of the Pope to prove that he was Antichrist The same Historian also tells us That almost All Good Just and Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time the time of Hildebrand he means because they Saw those things then come to pass which were foretold long before 3. But this is not all We have further Testimonies of this Truth 1. Robert Grosthead who both for Learning and Piety was Inferior to none in his Age He on his Death-bed having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice he adds Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist Is not a Destroyer of Souls the Pope he means an Enemy of God and Antichrist And after a long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties he calls Rome Egypt so Saint John calls it Spiritually Sodom and Egypt and concludes that the Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude but by the Sword 2. Nor is this all we have great Councils of whole Nations in their Publick Edicts and Constitutions expresly declaring the Pope to be that Antichrist who Exalts himself above all that is called God We have a Publick Edict
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