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
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
Private Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta with great Insolence and without any Ground pretends to Cassate and null that Canon by the Authority of St. Peter who never had any such Authority to Null any Just Imperial or Synodical Constitutions yet that Canon was approved received and as de Jure it ought Obey'd by the Eastern Churches both then and ever after When these Pretensions of the Pope and his Legats prevailed not nor were regarded by the Council or Emperor or the Eastern Church other Arts were used at Rome to Conceal that Canon which they could not Cassate from the knowledge of the Western Church And to this end 1. They Corrupt the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis the most Authentick Book next to the Bible the Christian Church has or ever had Dionysius Exiguus a Roman-Abbot begins that Impious Work and in his Latin Translation of that Code amongst other things leaves out that Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and others of the Popish Party follow him 2. They Corrupt the Canon it self and by putting in other words in their false Translation they make it contradict the Greek Canon and the certain Sense of the Council that made it So in Gratian the Corruptions of this Canon are thus 1. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalia Privilegia in the Original Greek Gratian has Similia Privilegia like but not equal Priviledges 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior Roma Gratian has Superior Roma Old Rome must be Superior to New Rome or Constantinople if Forgery and Falsification of Records can do it for better Grounds they have none 3. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam in Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa Gratian impudently reads Non Tamen in Ecclesiasticis c. But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legats could do and all their other Indirect Arts afterwards this Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was received in the Christian World and long after Confirmed by General Councils not only by the Synodus 6. Generalis which was held Anno 681. of which a little before But the Eighth General Council under Pope Adrian II. about the Year 870. gives that Precedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their Canon Law in the best Editions of it Revised and Corrected by Pope Gregory XIII And 't is to be observed that this Synodus 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legats there and was then and still is approved and received at Rome Nor need we wonder at it For what it did was carried chiefly by the Popes Authority who was by that Council basely and servilly flatter'd they Calling him Most Holy and Oecumenical Pope and Equal to the Angels c. This Title Oecumenical the Pope took kindly then though his Predecessor Gregory the Great abhorr'd it as Antichristian But to return to the Objection 3. And here before I give a Particular and Distinct Answer to this Place of John Feed my Sheep on which they commonly and vainly build the Popes Supremacy I shall crave leave a little to Explain the nature and measure of that Power which they give the Pope under the name of his Supremacy And here they say That our blessed Saviour gave His own Power to Peter made him his Vicar Head and Pastor of all the Faithful in the World and that in most ample Words when he bad him Feed his Sheep and that it was our blessed Saviours Will that all Peter ' s Successors should have the very same Power which Peter had so the Trent Catechism tells us And this is that Plenitude of Power by which they Erroneously and Impiously Depose Kings and Emperors and as Pius V. does in this Bull we are now speaking of against Queen Elizabeth absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and sworn or natural Fidelity This premised I shall proceed to a direct and I hope a full and satisfying Answer to that place in John Feed my Sheep c. And here I consider 1. That if the Supremacy was first given to Peter in those words Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep as is confess'd and by our Adversaries positively affirm'd in the Objection which was after our blessed Saviours Resurrection then it is Evident he had it not before It being impossible he should have it before it was given him And then it will as Evidently follow that all those Places in the Gospel spoken of or to Peter before our blessed Saviour's Passion are Impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy which he had not till after the Resurrection And yet Innocent III. Boniface VIII and other Popes in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions the Canonists School-men and Commentators usually Cite many places in the Gospel besides this Pasce Oves to prove that Peter had the Supremacy before our blessed Saviour's Passion which here they Confess was not given him till after the Resurrection That they do urge many such Places is known to all Learned men vers'd in these Controversies but if any man doubt of it and desire Satisfaction I shall refer him to what a Learned Popish Writer and Capucine has said in the Margent where he tells us how many places are Cited for the Supremacy 2. When our blessed Saviour says Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep and Feed my Lambs he useth two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both which words the Vulgar Latin renders Pasce feed my Sheep and Lambs Now their Commentators on this place to very little purpose make a great stir and pudder to shew what none denys that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule and govern But let the word signifie what it will in the Civil State yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word where our blessed Saviours Lambs and Sheep that is the Faithful are to be fed every Bishop and Presbyter as well as Peter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastores and may and ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the â—lock of Christ. So 1. St. Paul tells us who from Miletum sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus I say Presbyters for Timothy who was their first Bishop was with Paul at Miletum and so was none of those he sent for and when they came he Exhorts them to take heed unto themselves and the Flock To feed the Church of God c. where St. Paul when he bids the Presbyters feed the Church useth the very same word our blessed Saviour doth when he bids Peter feed his Sheep 2. So Peter himself who little dream'd of any Supremacy given him by those words Feed my Sheep writing to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews and Exhorting the Jewish Elders or Presbyters to a diligent care in feeding the Flock he useth the very same word to them our
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
then found Peter there According to our Adversaries Computation in the year 51. Peter had sate Bishop in Rome about eight years and yet St. Paul neither found nor sought him at Rome where he was not but at Jerusalem where he was with the Jews who were Committed to his Charge and Cure 6. Lastly 'T is Evident St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews of which Babylon was the Metropolis And sure it is that when he says The Church of Babylon salutes you he intended as all men do who write Epistles of that Nature that they should know where he was and who they were who saluted them which was Impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome For at that time Rome neither was nor could be known to any by the name of Babylon no Author Sacred or Civil having ever call'd it so 'T is true St. John above Fifty years after callâ— Rome Babylon But he writing Mysterious Propheties spoke to use Eusebius's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used many Types Figures and Metaphors to express future things But that Peter 〈◊〉 writ no such Mysterious Prophetical Predictâ—ons but the plain Duties and Promises of thâ— Gospel should use such Types or Figures haâ—â— neither truth nor any probability By the Premisses I hope it may appear that it cannot be proved out of Scripture that ever Peter was at Rome 4. But let it be granted that it could be proved out of Scripture which is manifestly untrue that Peter was at Rome yet thence it will not follow that ever he was Bishop there much less for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended For 1. That he was Bishop of Rome or any place else there is not one syllable in Scripture and so from thence there can be no proof of his Roman Bishoprick And 2. If it be granted which is evidently untrue that it could out of Scripture be clearly proved that he was at Rome a longer time yet hence it does not follow that he was Bishop there For he was at Jerusalem Samaria Joppa c. as is evident in Scripture and yet our Adversaries neither do nor with any sense or reason can say that he was Bishop of all those places 3. Irenaeus an ancient and an approved Author expresly says That Peter and Paul Constituted Linus first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens after the Apostles was the third Bishop there After him Eusebius says the same thing That after the Martyrdom of Paul and Peter Linus was the first Bishop of Rome And again speaking of the Bishops of Rome he says That Linus was the first and Anencletus or Anacletus as he is usually call'd the second And though Eusebius say That Linus was Primus post Petrum the first Bishop of Rome after Peter yet his meaning is not that Peter was Bishop of Rome before him as is evident by what he says afterwards That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles Paul and Peter and by what Irenaeus said before him That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles For if this be good consequence Linus was first Bishop of Rome after Peter Ergo Peter was Bishop Rome too Then this in Irenaeus and Eusebius who both say it will be good Consequence also Clemens was third Bishop of Rome after Paul and Peter Ergo Paul and Peter were both Bishops of Rome The truth is that neither Consequence is good Irenaeus and Eusebius did indeed believe Paul and Peter Founders of the Roman Church but neither of them to be Bishops there which a Learned Roman Catholick evidently saw and publickly acknowledges By the way let me observe That Eusebius in two places here cited puts Paul before Peter and not only Eusebius a fallible Author but St. Paul himself puts James before Peter Now if Eusebius or St. Paul had known and believ'd St. Peter to have been what the Pope and his Party without any ground vainly Imagine the Supream Monarcâ— over the whole Church and the Apostles themselves it had been a great Affront and Injury to St. Peter and such an Incivility as St. Paul would not have been guilty of 4. And 't is yet more Considerable what St. Paul says in the place last cited For there we have these things certain in the Text 1. That Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision the Jews were Committed to him as his Charge and Cure as the Gentiles to Paul 2. It was our blessed Saviour who Commission'd both of them and appointed them those Provinces for none else could He only could assign them their Provinces who gave them the Apostolical Power to govern them Peter as our Adversaries say was Supream Monarch of the whole Church had no Superior but our blessed Saviour and so none else to Commission him or Appoint him his Province 3. Both of them till that time had diligently and with great Success effectually labour'd in their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles 4. By a mutual Agreement they consent and promise That Peter as he had before so for the future He should go to the Jews and make them his Charge and Cure and Paul to the Gentiles 5. And this Agreement was about the year of our Lord. 51. when according to our Adversaries Computation he was and had been Bishop of Rome Eight or Nine years 6. I desire then to know Whether Peter after this Consent and Agreement of the Apostles continued Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome as our Adversaries pretend he did or not If he did he contradicted his Commission which our blessed Saviour had given him to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and Neglected the Jews whom he had Concredited to his care and Committed to him as his proper Charge For to take the charge of the Gentiles and Jews too was not only against his Commission but against that Solemn Consent and Agreement of the Apostles before mention'd wherein it was agreed and promised That Peter should go not to Rome but to the Circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles Nor can it be credible that Peter would Act in Contradiction to his Commission and his Agreement so solemnly made with the Apostles But if at the time of that Agreement which was Anno Christi 51. he either was not which is most true Bishop of Rome or then left it then it evidently follows That he Continued not Bishop of Rome for Five and twenty years as is by our Adversaries with great confidence and no reason asserted 7. And this is further manifest from our Adversaries own Principles and Positions Baronius tells us That Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and at Rome five and twenty years And for this he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon By the way concerning what Baronius says of Peter's being Bishop for so many years at Antioch and
Rome Observe 1. That Eusebius says indeed that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and then by our blessed Saviour's Command as they say went to Rome But so far is he from saying that he was seven years Bishop there that he expresly says That Euodius was the First Bishop of Antioch 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome and refers us to what Eusebius says ad Ann. 2. Claudij The man who understood no Greek is miserably mistaken as Universally he is when he meddles with Greek Authors unless their Translations be true for Eusebius in his Greek Text as all know and may see has no such thing as Five and twenty years nay he does not so much as say that he was Bishop of Rome at all much less that he was Five and twenty years Bishop there But the Latin Copies Interpolated and Corrupted as thousands others are by Roman Arts deceived him But to let this pass Baronius says That Peter was Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Five and twenty of Rome So that in the whole he was Two and thirty years Bishop in Syria and Italy and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was Anno Christi 34. to which if 32. be added the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome the product will be 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a Gentile-Church and his Martyrdom was 13. Neronis that is Anno Christi 68. or as Baronius Computes 69. whence by this their Account it evidently follows that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom about two years only excepted Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a gentile-Gentile-Church Which is 1. Manifestly untrue and inconsistent with what is said of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with his Commission in which the care of the Circumcision was concredited to him by our blessed Saviour and with his Solemn Agreement with the Apostles to go to the Circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles And 2. It is without any the least ground in Scripture by which it neither does nor can appear that ever Peter was at Rome so much as for one Day much less that he was Bishop there Five and twenty years Nor can it appear in Scripture that ever he was at Antioch save once nor is there any mention of any thing he then did there save that he dissembled and was justly reprehended for it by St. Paul whereas it is evident in Scripture that St. Paul was at Antioch for a whole year at one time constituted the Church there confirmed them afterwards in the Faith and ordain'd Elders to govern them staid there a long time and continued there preaching the Gospel and yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe them Peter was Bishop there and not Paul The truth is though it be Evident that Paul as Apostle did all Episcopal Acts there yet 't is certain that neither he nor Peter was particularly Bishop of that or any other place 3. It is utterly incredible that Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church as they pretend should for Two and thirty years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that while the Apostles liv'd and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one Syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in those two and thirty years no nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who liv'd long in Antioch and longer in Rome and had opportunity nay had it been true a necessity to mention it He had need of a strong Faith who can believe this for my part Credat Judaeus Apella c. 4. And as for Peter's being Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Twenty five of Rome it is further Considerable That the greatest Patrons of this Popish Position although they agree in the Conclusion that Peter was so long Bishop at those two places yet they Contradict each other and the Truth and by their own Positions to save their Adversaries that Labour utterly Overthrow and Confute that Position they indeavour to prove This Evidently appears in this Case as it is stated by Onuphrius Baronius and Bellarmine 1. Onuphrius tells us That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea for Nine years next after our blessed Saviour's death that is till the year of Christ. 43. after this he was Bishop of Antioch Seven years to the year of our blessed Saviour 50. And then Five and twenty years heâ— sat Bishop of Rome that is by his own Computation till the year of Christ 75. So that by this Account Peter was Bishop of Rome Anno Christi 75. And yet he there says That Peter died Anno Christi 69. And then by his Calculation Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death 2. Baronius states the Question thus Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi 39. and was Bishop there Seven years that is till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says that from Antioch Peter went to Rome and sate there Bishop Five and twenty years that is till the year 71. And so by his own account Peter must be Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead For the same Baronius tells us that Peter died Anno Christi 69. And though this Account of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome be not only Erroneous but to all Intelligent Persons Ridiculous yet Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius but to Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius c. whose Opinions Baronius endeavours to confute In short as there is no ground in Scripture that Peter ever was at Rome so that he was Twenty five years Bishop there neither Scripture nor purer Antiquity affords them any proof or probability Eusebius his Greek Chronicon basely corrupted in a Latin Version of it about Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour being that they must rely upon 5. Our Adversaries had ill luck when they made Peter first Bishop of Rome attributed the Supremacy to him and that he might have it made the Pope his Successor For had they chosen Paul in stead of Peter they might have had far more though not enough to prove and that out of express Scripture both Paul's Supremacy and the Popes Succession to him For these following Particulars every one of them may evidently be proved out of Scripture 1. That the Romans were Gentiles 2. That Paul by our blessed Saviour's Appointment was the Apostle of the Gentiles Peter was not but of the Jews 3. Paul
or probability I have indeavoured to prove before sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. As to the second point What is Heresie and who is the Heretick who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications I say in short 1. That it is agreed amongst their Casuists and Canonists That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe joyned with pertinacy or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith and he who so holds such an Opinion is an Heretick 2. And he is pertinacious they say who holds such an Opinion which he does or might and ought to know to be against Scripture or the Church By the way I desire to be inform'd how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned to know with any certainty or assurance what Truths are approved or Errors damn'd in Scripture when they are prohibited under pain of Excommunication ever to read or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand Nor are Bibles only in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue are equally prohibited So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error what Doctrines are Evangelical what Heretical 3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie yet 't is not really by them meant For by their receiv'd Principles a man may hold a hundred Errors which he Does or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith and yet be no Heretick For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us Many Rusticks or Country Clowns having Errors against the Articles of Faith are excused from Heresie because they are Ignorant of those Articles and are ready to Obey The Church And a little before If any man err in those things he is bound to know yet so as it is without pertinacy because he Knows it not to be against The Church and is ready to believe as the Church believes he is no Heretick So that by their Principles let a man believe as many things as he will contrary to Scripture yet if he have the Colliers faith and implicitly believe as the Church believes all is well he is by them esteemed no Heretick 4. And hence it is that they have of late left the word Scripture out of their definition of Heresie and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture but who receive not or contradict what is believed to be de fide by the Pope and his Party And therefore they plainly tell us That None can be an Heretick who believes that Article of our Creed The Holy Catholick Church you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church not only without but against all reason For so their Trent-Catechism tells us not only in the Text but least we should not take notice of it in the Margent too where they say Verus 9. Articuli Professor that is he who will believe what their Church believes Nequit dici Haereticus That is he who believes the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church in the Creed and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost he shall not we may be sure be call'd an Heretick at Rome Nay so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis That to believe as the Church believes excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie that they expresly say That such men may in some Cases not only Lawfully but Meritoriously believe an Error contrary to Scripture which in another more knowing Person would be a real and formal Heresie The Case is this as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it If a Rustick or Ignorant Person concerning Articles of Faith do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion he does Merit by believing although it be an Heretical Error because he is Bound to believe till it appear to him to be against The Church So that in the mean time he is no Heretick For 1. He may lawfully do it 2 He is Bound to do it to believe his Bishop and the Doctrines proposed by him 3. Nay it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors though it be contrary to Scripture and the word of our gracious God This is strange Doctrine yet publickly maintain'd by their Casuists and Schoolmen and approved by their Church For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius nor in any publick declaration disown'd by their Church quae non prohibet peccare aut errare cum possit Jubet And here in relation to the Premisses I shall further propose two things and leave them to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine that an Implicite Faith in their Church and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes is enough to free a Papist from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise through Ignorance he hold some heretical Errors contrary to what his Church believes why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it as it comes to his knowledge free him from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise in the mean time he may believe some things contrary to Scripture Certainly if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party for they are the Roman Church with a resolution to believe them all when they come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it much more will an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles in Scripture with a Resolution to believe them all when they really come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine and in such a measure and degree Infallible as the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party without great Error and Impudence cannot pretend to 2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine as may appear by the Premisses that if any Bishop preach to his People the Laity and Unlearned Rusticks some Heretical Doctrine they are bound to believe it and may not only Lawfully but Meritoriously do so till it appear that their Church is against it Hence it evidently follows That if the Bishop preach'd this Doctrine That 't is lawful to kill an Heretical King who is actually Anathematiz'd and Deposed by the Pope they were bound to believe it and might lawfully and meritoriously do so and then if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine then to put it in Execution and actually kill such a King could not be unlawful and vitious So that we need not wonder that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious
affigi ac publicari possint per se vel alium seu alios publice vel occultè directè vel indirectè impediverint easdem Censuras et Paenas Ipso facto Incurrere Et cum fraus et dolus nemini debeant Patrocinari ne quisquam ex his qui alicui Regimini et Administrationi deputati sunt Infra Tempus sui Regiminis seu Administrationis Praedictas Sententias Censuras et Poenas sustineat quasi pâ—st dictum Tempus Sententiis Censuris et Poenis praedictis amplius Ligatus non existat quemcúnque qui dum in Regimine et Administratione existens monitioni et mandato nostris quoad praemissa vel aliquid eorum obtemperare noluerit etiam deposito Regimine et Administratione hujusmodi nisi paruerit eisdem Censuris et Poenis subjicere decernimus Sect. 20. Et ne Henricus Ejusque Complices et Fautores Adhaerentes Consultores et Sequaces aliÃque quos praemissa Concernunt Ignorantiam eorundem Praesentium Literarum et in eis Contentorum praetendere valeant Literas ipsas in quibus Omnes et singulos tam juris quam facti etiam solemnitatum et Processuum Citationúmque Omissarum defectus etiamsi Tales sint de quibus Specialis et expressa mentio facienda esset propter Notorietatem facti Auctoritate Scientia et Potestatis plenitudine similibus supplemus in Basilicae Principis Apostolorum et Cancellariae Apostolicae de urbe et in partibus in Collegiatae Beatae Mariae Brugen Tornacen et Parochialis de Dunkercae Oppidorum Moriensis Dioecesis Ecclesiarum valvis Affigi et Publicari Mandamus decernentes quod earundem Literarum Publicatio sic facta Henricum Regem Ejúsque Complices Fautores Adhaerentes Consultores et Sequaces Omnesque alios et singulos quos Literae Ipsae quomodolibet Concernunt perinde eos arctent ac si Literae Ipsae eis Personalitèr Lectae et Intimatae fuissent cum non sit verisimile quod ea quae tam patentèr fiunt debeant apud eos incognita remanere Sect. 21. Ceterum quia difficile foret Praesentes Literas ad singula quaeque Loca ad quae necessarium esset deferri volumus et dictâ Auctoritate decernimus quod earum transumptis manu publici Notarij Confectis vel in Almâ Vrbe Impressis ac Sigillo alicujus Personae in Dignitate Ecclesiastica Constitutae munitis ubÃque eadem fides adhibeatur quae Originalibus adhiberetur si essent exhibitae vel ostensae Sect. 22. Nulli ergo Omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae Monitionis Aggravationes Reaggravationis Declarationis Percussionis Suppositionis Inhabilitationis Absolutionis Liberationis Requisitionis Inhibitionis Hortationis Exceptionis Prohibitionis Concessionis Extensionis Suppletionis Mandatorum Voluntatis et Decretorum Infringere vel ei ausu Temerario contraire Si quis autem hoc attentare Praesumpserit Indignationem Omnipotentis Dei ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus se noverit Incursurum Dat. Romae apud S. Marcum Anno Incarnationis Dom. 1435. 3. Kal. Septemb. Pont. Nostri Anno Primo FINIS A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK I. THE Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth containing the Damnation and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in Latin and English P. 1. II. The first Observation that Pius V. was neither the first nor last Pope who Excommunicated and damn'd Kings and Emperors For 1. before him Pope Constantine Gregory the Second Greg. the Third Greg. the Seventh Gregory the Ninth Innocent the Fourth Paul the Third c. did the same thing And 2. Gregory the Thirteenth and Sixtus the Fifth after him p. 7. III. The second Observation concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to Pius the Fifth his Bull that it is Damnatio Excommunicatio Elizabethae Where it is proved 1. That not only Pius the Fifth but other Popes not short of him in time or impiety use the same hard word Damnation in the Titles prefix'd to their damnatory Bulls wherein they Excommunicate Kings and Emperors 2. The uncharitable Error and Invalidity of their reasons they do or can pretend for doing so p. 15. IV. The third Observation wherein 1. The notion and significations of the word Damnation are explain'd 2. That by the word Damnation in their Anathema's and Damnatory Bulls not only some temporal loss or punishment as to their Bodies or Estates but eternal Damnation of Body and Soul is meant by the Pope and his Party together with the invalidity of their reasons and pretences to justifie them in this particular p. 20. V. The fourth Observation wherein we have 1. The grounds on which Pius the Fifth and other Popes build their Power to Excommunicate and Depose Kings and that in the Supremacy and Plenitude of Power which they pretend our blessed Saviour gave to Peter and in him to all his Successors So that Peter and so every Successor of his was constituted a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms to pull up and throw down to dissipate and destroy to plant and build c. 2. That such Power was by our blessed Saviour given to Peter and his Successors they indeavour to prove out of Scripture and in their Bulls cite the places Gen. 1. 16. and Jer. 1. 10. 3. The ridiculous inconsequence and impertinence of such Papal reasoning which shews them rather to be Fools then Infallible p. 26. VI. The fifth Observation against the Pope's pretended Supremacy 1. That Peter's Supremacy much less the Popes cannot be proved from Matth. 10. 2. where he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus or as in the Latin Fathers Princeps Apostolorum 2. Nor from that place Matth. 16. 18. 19. 3. That St. Paul in Scripture hath a far better pretence to the Supremacy and the Bishoprick of Rome then St. Peter and yet neither he nor any for him ever pretended to any Papal Supremacy 4. How our blessed Saviour and the Apostles yet Peter no more then the rest are in Scripture said to be Foundations of the Church 5. That the Power of the Keys was given to every Apostle as well and as much as to Peter Nay 6. To every Bishop and Priest as is expresly affirm'd in the Authentick Offices of the Roman Church and in their Trent Council and Catechism 7. That every Apostle was Christ's Vicar as well as Peter that the Jesuites profess and in their Institutions do publish it that their Superiors are Christ's Vicars 8. That Pasce Oves Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. though usually is most impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy 9. That the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which utterly overthrows the Popes Supremacy is basely corrupted by Gratian and the Canonists and that it might not appear left out of their old Editions of the Councils p. 36. 37. c. VII The sixth Observation In which a further examination and confutation of the Popish pretended grounds for the Popes Supremacy That they
pretty well but much short of that Magnitude the Pope meant if he knew what he said when he affirm'd That he was as much greater then the Emperor as the Sun was greater than the Moon 2. And therefore another Canonist would have the Sun greater than the Moon and so the Pope greater than the Emperor Fifty seaven times 3. But this as too little does not please the Pope's Party and Parasites and therefore Laurentius another Canonist says That it is manifest that the Sun is greater than the Moon so the Pope than the Emperor an hundred forty seaven times I omit the fractions for if the Pope be 147. times greater than the Emperor me thinks it might satisfie his Ambition so that he needed not stand upon the fraction or little overplus 4. But this also comes far short of that Magnitude which they ascribe to the Sun above the Moon and so to the Pope above the Emperor for they tell us That the Sun is greater than the Moon 7744 ½ seaven thousand seaven hundred forty four times and one half more To such a Prodigious greatness does the Bishop of Rome exalt himself So that if St. Paul say true That he is Antichrist who exalts himself above all Kings and Emperors then it will evidently follow that the Pope is Antichrist for never man did or without Antichristian Pride and Impiety can so exalt himself They sometimes tell us in their Law That the Papal Dignity is to be prefer'd to the Imperial more then Gold is to Lead and if Gratian saytrue it was the Pope who said so And the Gloss gives the reason of this Papal Greatness above all Kings Because Kings and Princes are to submit their Necks to the Popes Knees he might have said and their Mouthes to the Popes Feet which the Emperor is bound to kiss That this is Impious and Antichristian Doctrine I think evident and I have some reason to believe that intelligent and impartial Judges will think so too and yet it has heretofore and still is approved and as Catholick received at Rome For 1. That Decretal of Pope Innocent the Third was by Gregory the Ninth made a Law amongst other Decretals by him commanded to be received as Law in all Vniversities and Papal Consistories abont 450. years ago and so continues to this day 2. For the Glosses before-mentioned they are not only in the old Editions of their Law but were approved and confirmed afterwards by Gregory the Thirteenth and so stand approved and confirmed to this day who expresly tells us That the Law being by his command receiv'd corrected and purged no man for the future should dare to add detract or change any thing in it In short whether the Champions of the Church of Rome and Catholick Cause as they call it will think what is said in these Papers worthy of any Answer or no I know not But in case they do I shall make them if I mistake not a very fair offer which if accepted will much lessen their pains and labour yet so as if they perform the Condition annexed they may as to my self effectually do their business and make me their Proselyte The thing I mean is this If they can from Scripture by any one Cogent and Concluding Argument prove any one of these following Propositions and unless they be all proved their Papal Monarchy cannot stand I will grant the rest and give them the Cause I say then if they can make it appear 1. That our blessed Saviour before his Ascension did constitute Peter his Vicar and gave him such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction as is now contended for over the Apostles and the whole Church For if Peter had no such Power he could not transfer it to his Successors it being impossible that they should have that Power Jure Successionis which their Predecessor never had 2. If they can prove that St. Peter while he lived did exercise such Power and Supream Jurisdiction even over the Apostles c. By their own Computation St. Peter lived 34. or 35. years after the Ascension of our blessed Saviour and was as they say Bishop of Antioch 7. and of Rome 25. years Now if it neither do nor can appear that in all that time he exercised any such Monarchical Power or Jurisdiction we may safely conclude either that he had no such Power which is most true or betray'd his trust in not making use of it for his Masters Glory and his Churches good which I suppose our Adversaries will not say In this Case Idem est non esse non apparere and therefore our Adversaries must pardon us if we do not believe what they cannot prove St. Peters Monarchy 3. But let it be supposed which neither has been nor can be proved that Peter had and executed such Power let them make it appear that it was not Personal and Temporary to cease with his Person as the Apostleship did but to be transferred to some Successor For if it was temporary and ceas'd with St. Peter's Person then whoever after Peter's death pretends to that Power is not bonae fidei possessor but an Impious and Antichristian Usurper 4. But let all those Particulars be supposed which being untrue cannot possibly be proved that Peter had and executed such Power and that it was to be transmitted to his Successor Let them make it appear that the Bishop of Rome was that Successor that Peter was as they say 25. years Bishop of Rome or 25. days or that he ever was at Rome For if it be so far from truth that Peter was 25. years Bishop of Rome that it cannot appear from Scripture that he was ever Bishop there at all or that he ever was at Rome It will evidently follow that the Pope is not St. Peter's Successor and so can have no Title Jure Successionis to that Supremacy they say Peter had It being impossible that the Pope should succeed Peter if he never preceeded him in the Bishoprick of Rome 5. Let them make it appear that our blessed Saviour while on Earth either exercis'd or had such a Temporal Monarchy as the Pope now challenges as his Vicar For unless this appear all their pretences to such Power as Vicars of our B. Saviour will be vain and irrational it being impossible that the Pope or Peter should derive from him that power which he himself neither had nor ever here on Earth exercis'd These are the Foundations upon which the Papal Monarchy Spiritual and Temporal is built and if these fail the whole Fabrick will and must fall and therefore they are concern'd by some real and rational proof to make them good Now if our Adversaries can and will make it appear from Sacred Scripture that Peter ever had or exercised such a Power as is pretended that it was not personal in him but to be transmitted to his Successor that he
that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome is true is this The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it and in their Index Expurgatorius Commanded it to be blotted out But Erasmus adds further That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest because where many are number'd there is a necessity we begin with some one and 't is not material which we begin with And This the Inquisitors let pass without a Deleatur they do not condemn it to be blotted out and so seem to approve it otherwise it had not pass'd so that even by our Adversaries consent all that can be rationally Inferr'd from that Text where in numbering the Apostles Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first is only a Primacy of Order which we willingly grant but no Primacy much less a Supremacy of Authority Dominion and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles which the Pope and his Party desire and we justly deny 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus so Princeps or Prince amongst the best Latin Authors usually signifies Order Only or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes without any Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter I have Authentick warrant even the Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent publish'd by Pius V. The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth and then Revised by the Authority of Clement VIII and Vrban VIII and Printed at Antverp 1660. In this Breviary we have this Hymn in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes Princes of the Churches For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two nor Properly to any but them two in that Place Though elsewhere it relates to all the Apostles as in the Place cited in the Margent when after the Invitatory as they call it Come let us adore the Lord King of the Apostles it follows thus Aeterna Christi munera Apostolorum Gloria Palmas Hymnos debitos Laetis canamus mentibus Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes according to the Decree of the Trent Council All the other Apostles under our blessed Saviour and by his Authority were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Peter Now I desire to know how these things will Consist Pius V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth says That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only to Peter and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms so he in his Bull and yet the same Pope in this Roman Breviary for it was Approved and Published by him and the Hymn here cited says That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes and if so then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed no the Commission of every Apostle given by our blessed Saviour was as unlimited and as large as Peters This will appear in all the Particulars of it equally given to all as they are expresly set down in Scripture from whence alone we can surely know what their Authority and Commission was Our blessed Saviour tells them and us 1. As my Father sent me so send I you There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all 2. Then he breath'd upon them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them It was that Holy Spirit which gave them 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine 2. Power to work Miracles for Confirmation of it 3. Then he adds whose sins ye retain they are retained c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church which is elsewhere called The Power of the Keys which Consists in binding and loosing retaining and remitting sins For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited and is by our Adversaries confess'd So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys the Power of binding and loosing of retaining and remitting sins is Equally given to all the Apostles to every One as well as Peter 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province where and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power Go and Teach All Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you Their Diocese was the World Go ye into All The World and preach the Gospel to every Creature every man And the administring the Sacraments and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Goâ—pel was the business they were to do in that their Diocese 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance Lo I am with you Always even to the End of the World These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles and which to me seems Evident without difference or distinction Equally to all to Simon the Cannite for so it should be writ as well and as much as to Simon Peter If any think otherwise if he can and will by any Cogent Reason make it appear either 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was in Scripture given peculiarly to Peter whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms as Pope Pius V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms I say he who can and will make both or either of these appear shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery and I shall for the future have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy which at present I take to be a groundless Error without any proof or probability I know that the Popes in their Constitutions and their Party usually urge that place in Matthew to prove Peter's and thence their own vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves not excepted the words These Thou art Peter and upon This Rock I will build my Church And I give unto thee The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven From this Place most
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
enough tells us That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All And Irenaeus gives the Reason of it His Sufferings were more He planted more Churches He writ more Epistles then they all his being Fourteen and all the rest but Seven and they in respect of his short ones too which then were and ever since have been and while the World stands will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy and for St. Paul's Preference before him at least his Independence upon Peter as the Supream Monarch of the Church is That he tells the Corinthians That the care of All The Churches lay upon him Nor that only but that he made Orders and Constitutions for All those Churches which they were bound to observe So I Ordain saith he in All the Churches So our English truly renders it I know the Vulgar Latin which the Trent Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick renders it otherwise So I teach in all Churches but the word there signifies not to teach but properly to Ordain and Legally Constitute Define and Command So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text and therefore he says That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches was giving them a Law which they were to obey So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture and that by himself who best knew and was Testis idoneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Witness beyond all Exception 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All whereas in Scripture no such thing is said of Peter or any other Apostle Upon consideration of the Premises some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul A Preacher to the whole World So Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places as of James at Jerusalem John in Asia Peter and Paul at Antioch c. He adds concerning Paul That he did particularly Officiate to the whole World And to the same purpose Theodoret Expounding the words of the Apostle That the care of All the Churches lay upon him He says That the sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul More than this cannot be said of Peter nor is there half so much said of him as of St. Paul in Scripture Had Peter told us That the care of All the Churches lay upon him and that He made Orders and Constitutions to be observed In All Churches both which are expresly said of St. Paul the Canonists and Popish Party would have had some pretence who now have none for Peter's Supremacy I urge not this to Ascribe to Paul that Supremacy we deny to Peter For neither had they nor any other Apostle any such thing but only to shew That St. Paul his Laboâ—s Sufferings the many Churches founded by him and His Canonical Writings consider'd may be thought not without reason a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church then St. Peter 2. But as it is and must be confess'd by Divines Ancient and Modern Protestants and Papists That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation and that Petra on which the Church is Built So there is also a Personal Foundation evidently mention'd in Scripture I mean Persons on whom the Christian Church is built And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour 2. His Apostles 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built is evident from the Scriptures before Cited Such a Rock as Peter neither was nor could be much less any of those they call his Successors For 1. Our blessed Saviour was and still is a Rock on which as Irenaeus tells us the Vniversal Church both before and since his coming into the World was built He was promised by God presently after the fall of Adam and then successfully by all the Prophets His Death and Passion was a Propitiation as well for the Sins of those who lived before as ours who live after it and those Promises of the Messiah were such as all the Patriarchs Prophets and Pious men before Christ did know and believe Nay if we believe Eusebius the Promises of the Messias were clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets though in a less degree and measure of clearness and their Belief and suitable Obedience such that though they had not the name yet they might truly be call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and so it was to all the Ancient Church by the Prophets who foretold them of the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd and yet he says that He preached No other Things then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come And this is a truth so manifest that to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers Peter Lombard and the Popish School-men writing De fide Antiquorum of the Faith by which the Saints before our blessed Saviour were saved they all say that they then as we now were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer The difference was 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo we in Christo Actu Exhibito 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming was more Imperfect and Implicit Ours since he is come and the Gospel clearly publish'd much more Perfect and Explicite This I say to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock on which the Church under the Old Testament was built and in this Particular such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was nor could be it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation on which the whole Christian Church is built even the Apostles themselves as well as others who all of them Peterâ— as well as Paul in respect of Christ who is the great Immoveable Rock which sustains the whole Building are Superstructions though otherwise in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching they are call'd Foundations yet only Secundary Foundations all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ So in the like Instance all the Apostles Peter as well as the rest were both Sheep and Shepherds 1. Sheep in respect of Christ who is the great and chief Shepherd My Sheep hear my voice says our blessed Saviour The Apostles did so when he call'd them they heard and obey'd him Again I lay down my life for my Sheep so he did for his Apostles else
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
same purpose 2. It is certain and Confess'd that our blessed Saviour in this place of Matthew does not Actually give St. Peter the Power of the Keys be what it will but pro futuro promise that he will give it For it is in that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabo I will give not I have given or do give and therefore they must shew some other place in Scripture where that Power is Actually given to Peter and that to him alone else if it be given to the other Apostles as well as to him it will be Impossible to prove his Prerogative and Supremacy over the other Apostles from that Power which they have as well as he 3. But it is certain that the Power of the Keys bâ— what it will was by our blessed Saviour afterwards given to all the Apostles as well and 〈◊〉 much as to Peter So it evidently Appears bâ— St. Matthew in the place Cited Where ouâ— blessed Saviour speaking to all his Disciples aâ— well as Peter hath these words Verily I say untâ— You 't is all of them he speaks to whatsoeveâ— you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaveâ— and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall loosed in Heaven Here his Promise made beforâ— to Peter Chap. 16. 19. is made Good to him and the Power of the Keys given him but ' tâ—â— manifest that it is in the same time and Placâ— equally given to all the Apostles as well as 〈◊〉 Peter Their own Authentick Offices noâ— and heretofore in Publick use in the Church Rome do attest this truth In one of which they are taught to Invocate the Apostles in thâ— Form Orate pro eo Omnes Sancti Apostoâ—â— Quibus à Domino data est Potestas Ligandi Sâ—â—vendi The Power of Binding and Loosinâ—â— and so the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles as well as to Peter This the Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledgâ— that the Power of binding and loosing was given Paul as well as Peter and further adds Thâ— Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul and 〈◊〉 Petri Pauli ligat solvit binds and looseth their stead and place The Ancient MS. Mâ—â—sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham says the â—ry same thing So does their St. Anselme aâ—â— the Old Ordo Romanus expresly says That the Power of the Keys or the Power of binding and loosing was by our blessed Saviour given to all the Apostles and in them to all their Successors Vide Bandinum Lombardum c. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 18. 19. and the rest there Their Trent Catechism published by Pope Pius V. according to the Decree of the Trent Council assures us That every Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour Hence it is that in their Roman Pontifical in their Ordination of a Priest this Power of the Keys of remitting and retaining sins is given to every one Ordain'd to that Office and which may seem strange in the very same words our blessed Saviour used when he gave that Power to Peter and the other Apostles Nor is this all Their Oecumenical Council of Trent approves and by a Synodical Definition and Decree confirms all this And says further That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left All Priests His Vicars as Presidents and Judges who By the Power of the Keys should Pronounce Sentence of the Remission and retaining of Sins And this they there prove out of this very Place of Matthew from which they would and generally endeavor to prove the Popes Absolute Monarchical Supremacy And Power to Depose Kings and Emperors To omit all other Instances which are too many sure I am that Pope Innocent IV. builded his Power to Depose the Emperor Friderick upon this one Text We saith that Pope being Christ's Vicar and it being said to us in the Person of Peter whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. do Depose that Emperor and Absolve all His Subjects from their Oaths of Allegigance c. From the Premisses and Authorities above Cited I think 't is Evident 1. That in that Text Matth. 16. 19. The Power of the Keys was only promised but not Actually given to Peter 2. When it was really and de facto given him Matth. 18. 18. It was as well and as much given to all the other Apostles as to him as besides what is aforesaid is attested and expresly affirmed by Pope Gregory the Great in his Book of the Sacraments published by Hugo Menardus a Learned Benedictine Monck where Pope Gregory and he as Wise and Learned and as Infallible as those who follow him teaches them to pray thus O God who hast Committed the Power of Binding and Loosing To the Apostles c. He knew not it seems any Supremacy given to Peter by our blessed Saviour when he gave him Potestatem Clavium The Power of the Keys seeing the same Power was given to other Apostles who never claim'd any such Supremacy 3. Lastly I desire then to know by what Logick they can prove St. Peter's Supremacy over all the Apostles for having a Power the Power of the Keys which every Apostle had as well as He. 4. There is one place more and but one wherein the Power of the Keys is Actually given to Peter The words are these As my Father sent me so send I you And he breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Where 1. It is certain and confess'd That though the Power of the Keys be not here expresly nam'd yet to retain and remit here in John signifies the very same thing That to bind and loose in Matthew where only the Power of the Keys is named This the Trent Catechism and the Trent Fathers themselves must and do acknowledge as will manifestly appear by the Places cited in the Margent and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John allow it and tell us truly That remittere here in John is the very same with solvere to loose in Matthew and so retinere here the same with ligare in Matthew 2. And 't is as certain from the express words of the Text and the undoubted meaning of them that the Power of the Keys is here given Equally to all the Apostles as well as Peter For so the words of their Commission I send You mine Apostles and he Breathed on Them his Apostles whose sins Ye my Apostles retain c. The Authority and Power here mention'd is without distinction or difference of Degree Equally given to all to James and John and Jude as well as Peter 3. Nay more it is Confess'd and positively and truly affirm'd by a very Learned Popish Author That all the Apostles as well as Peter are by this Commission
Vicars and Successors of Christ and have the Power of the Keys to bind and loose retain and remit sins Equally given to them All. Now if this be true then it will inevitably follow That all the Arguments they usually bring to prove the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy even over Kings and Emperors because he was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him I say All such Arguments from such Topicks will not only be inconsequent but indeed altogether impertinent and ridiculous For if this Argument be good and concluding The Keys were given to Peter and he is the Vicar of Christ Ergo He is the sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church Then this will be as good and concluding Every Apostle as well as Peter was the Vicar of Christ and had the Keys given him Ergo Every Apostle was sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church And then by this wild Logick we shall have Twelve or Thirteen Persons and every one of them sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church That the Power of the Keys was by our blessed Saviour given to All the Apostles as well as Peter seems to me Evident by the Premisses and that all of them as much and as well as He were Christi Vicarij Christ's Vicars may be as Evident and must be Confess'd even by our Adversaries unless they will deny the plain Truth of Scripture and their own received Principles For 1. Our blessed Saviour tells us As my Father sent me so send I you Christ was our great Apostle sent immediately by his Father so that he was Legatus Vicarius Patris his Father's Vicar and Ambassador as St. Ambrose says And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles as his Vicars and Ambassadors So the same Father tells us in the same place and St. Paul says as much of himself and the other Apostles He hath Committed to us the Word of Reconciliation now then We are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs's stead All the Apostles were by our blessed Saviour Commission'd and sent as his Ambassadors what they did was in Christ's stead and place They were his Vicars and what they did was as his Deputies Vice-Christi supplying his place Thus Lyranus and the Interlinatory Glossator and they no Lutherans Explain that place so the Famous Bishop of Paris and Father of the School-men Peter Lombard so Pope Gregory the Great nay the Jesuits Instituta Societat Jesu Tom. 3. pag. 262. 263. acknowledge their Superiors though they be neither Popes nor Apostles to be Vicarios Christi Christ's Vicars And that I may neither trouble the Reader nor my self with more Testimonies Their own Authentick Offices which have been or are Approved and publickly used in their Church expresly say the very same thing That the Apostles All of them as well as Peter were Christ's Vicars particularly the present Roman Missal as does manifestly appear by the place quoted in the Margent This then being certain and by our Adversaries Confess'd That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour at the same time and in the very same words when and wherein they were given to Peter I say this being granted as it is and must it will be absolutely impossible for them to prove any Superiority in Peter much less a Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles from his Title of Christ's Vicar or the Power of the Keys both which every Apostle had as well and as much as He unless you will say That very Power which only makes Peter Equal to the rest makes him their Monarch and Superior Sure I am if this Argument be good and they have no better Peter is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo he is Superior to John Then this will be good too John is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo He is Superior to Peter But enough if not too much of this For the Arguments they bring for the Popes Supremacy drawn from his being Christ's Vicar and having the Power of the Keys are such as rather deserve pity or scorn then any serious Answer were it not that their greatest men for Place and Learning even their Infallible Popes in their Authentick Bulls perpetually urge them to prove the Pope Superior to Kings and Emperors and to have what Pope Pius V. in This Impious Bull against Queen Elizabeth pretends to Power to Depose them and Absolve Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity The Premises considered I think it is Evident and I doubt not but Impartial and Intelligent men think so too 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys Committed to him by our blessed Saviour and that Immediately without Any dependence on Peter or any other Sure I am that Cardinal Cusanus though a zealous Assertor of the Pope's Supremacy was convinc'd of this Truth as to St. Paul and so he might for the Rest and does in Terminis Acknowledge it He says That both Peter and Paul were Ecclesiae Principes Princes of the Catholick Church That they both of them had the Power of the Keys power to bind and loose and both of them had it Immediately from our blessed Saviour That as Peter was Primate as to the Jews so Paul was Primate as to the Gentiles and so that in this Primacy Peter was not subject to Paul nor Paul to Peter but each of them had that Primacy Immediately from Christ without any dependence on each other And this Cusanus there proves out of Ambrose Augustine and Hierome 2. And as every Apostle as well as Peter was Vicar of Christ and had the Power of the Keys so it appears by the Premises and is Confess'd by our Adversaries in the Places before Cited that all of them transferred that Title and Power to their Successors so that every Bishop and every Priest after the Apostles is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Whence it Evidently follows that the Bishops of Rome notwithstanding their great Noise and groundless pretence to the contrary are no more our blessed Saviour's Vicars nor have any more Power of the Keys then any I say again then any other Bishop in the World The Pope and Bishop of Rome no more then the Bishops of Roan and Rochester For their own Oecumenical and with them Infallible Council of Trent assures us of two things 1. That all Bishops are Apostolorum Successores Successors of the Apostles 2. That our blessed Saviour when he was about to Ascend into Heaven left Sacerdotes that is Bishops and other Priests his Vicars and gave them the Power of the Keys to bind and loose to remit and retain sins To conclude this Point If the Pope and his
Party have no better ground in Scripture then the Places above mention'd to prove and support that vast Papal Supremacy they most vainly and irrationally pretend to the whole Fabrick must of necessity fall It being impossible that so vast a Superstruction as their Popish Monarchy should be so sustain'd by such Reasons which are so far from being Cogent that they are altogether Impertinent Well but if these will not prove what they are produc'd for the Popes Supremacy other Texts they bring with as much Noise and Confidence as they did the former and if that be possible with less Reason or Consequence For Instance they Ciâ—e to prove the Pope's Supremacy over the whole Church even over all the other Apostles Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Pasce Oves meas Feed my Sheep And tell us That our blessed Saviour leaving the World did create Peter his Vicar and highest Priest and Prince of the Vniversal Church which he had promised before Matth. 16. 18 and now perform'd that promise And again they say It appears from this place That Peter and his Successors Popes of Rome is Head and Prince of the Church and that all the Faithful even the Apostles are made Subjects to him to be fed and ruled by him This place is urged by Pope Innocent the Third to the like though God knows little purpose who would have us understand by those words Feed my Sheep that our blessed Saviour meant all his Sheep all good Christians That he might shew says that Pope that they were none of our blessed Saviours Sheep who would not Acknowledge Peter and the Popes of Rome to be their Masters and Pastors And to name no more Pope Boniface VIII indeavours to prove that our blessed Saviour by those words Feed my Sheep meant Vniversally all his Sheep because he does not say singularly these or those but generally Feed my Sheep And from this Place so Expounded they would prove Peter ' s and so the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy over all Christians even the Apostles Kings and Emperors 1. Were it not certain that there is no possibility that any man should bring a true and concluding Reason to prove an erroneous and false Position it would hardly be credible that otherwise Learned men furnished with great Parts of Art and Nature should bring such miserable Stuff such misapply'd and misunderstood Scripture to prove that great Article of their Popes Supremacy which being a manifest Errour without any Foundation in Scripture or Primitive Antiquity I cannot blame them for not bringing what they neither have nor can have better Arguments but that they bring any at all to establish that which they ought and with evident and cogent Reasons might confute 2. As Antiquity did so we do grant all that with any Reason or Just ground they can desire that Peter had a Primacy of Order but not of Power or Jurisdiction amongst the Apostles For the Evangelist naming the Apostles says The First was Peter First in Order or if you will first respectu vocationis as first call'd by our blessed Saviour not to be one of his Disciples for so Andrew was call'd before him as is evident in the Text but in respect of his Call to be an Apostle For when out of his Disciples he chose Twelve to be his Apostles Matthew in the Place Cited saith The first was Peter So we grant to the Bishop of Rome what anciently was given him a Primacy of Order and Precedency before all the Bishops in the Roman Empire But not Jure Divino by Divine Right which without all Reason they pretend to but by the Consent of the Ancient Fathers and Councils And for this we have the Synodical Definition and Declaration of Six hundred and thirty Fathers in an Ancient and received General Council who said That because old Rome was the Imperial City therefore the Fathers had rightly given Priviledges to the Episcopal Seat of that City Where it is evident that in the Judgment of that great and good Council and of the General Council of Constantinople too which they there Cite 1. That the Priviledge and Precedency the Bishop of Rome had was not Convey'd to him by any Divine Right as they now pretend non à Christo vel Petro sed à Patribus it was the Fathers who gave them 2. And the Reason why they gave him such Priviledge and Precedency was not because he was Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor but because Rome was Vrbs Imperialis the great Metropolis of the Roman Empire I know the Popes Legats in that Council did what they could to hinder the passing that Canon and Pope Leo out of it when the Canon was passed did oppose it as much as he was able but in vain For the Canon was Synodically passed by the Concurrent Consent of the whole Council the Popes Legats excepted which was acknowledg'd by the Judges and then Confirm'd by the Emperor and Received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae That which troubled the Pope was that Constantinople should have Equal Priviledges with Rome Precedency only expected even in all Ecclesiastical business and that by the Canon of that great Council and Confirmation of the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople should have so vast a Territory under his Jurisdiction to wit Three whole Dioceses Thracica Asiana Pontica more then by any Law of God or Man the Pope ever had under him And 't is here observeable that although this Canon giving Equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to him of Old Rome Precedency only excepted absolutely deny'd that Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over all Patriarchs which the Popes were then nibling at and have since openly own'd yet Leo in his Epistles to the Emperor Anatolius Pulchoria Augusta c. wherein he writes fiercely against this Canon never pretended as afterwards and now they do That the Bishops of Rome had by Divine Right as Vicars of our blessed Saviour a Supream Jurisdiction over all Bishops and Patriarchs in the whole World but complains of Anatolius his pride Catalina Cethegum the Violation of the Nicene Canons and the wrong done to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch To talk of such a Monarchical Supremacy then as the Popes have since pretended to Pope Leo neither did nor durst it was a Doctrine unheard of in those purer times and had he challenged it then as due to him by Divine Right as he was Christ's Vicar he would have made himself Odious and having no ground for such a Challenge ridiculous to the Christian World But when notwithstanding all his Legates could do in the Council or he out of it the Canon pass'd by the Unanimous Consent of the Council and was Confirm'd by the Imperial and Supream Power of the Emperor for the Pope does Petition and Supplicate to him as his Superior though the Pope in a
blessed Saviour did to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he Feed the Flock He thinks it their duty as well as his to feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep And that which further and ad hominem more strongly confirms what I have said in this Particular is That our Adversaries grant though in Contradiction to the Sense many of them â—ive of those words Feed my Sheep when they â—ould build the Popes Supremacy upon them â—hat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both as it signifies to rule and feed and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviours Sheep is so far from being Peculiar to Peter or proving his Supremacy that it is the Duty not only of Peter but of every Bishop in the Christian World both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep This the Trent Catechism expresly affirms That all Bishops as well as Peter are Pastores Pastors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour and to prove this they Cite the Two very places which I a little before produced to the same purpose whence it manifestly appears That even in our Adversaries Judgment when the Popes Supremacy is a little out of their Head the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep is not Peter ' s Supream Prerogative but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World 3. But this though enough is not all we have greater and with them Infallible and therefore undeniable Authority to confirm what I have said and Confute our Adversaries as to their proof of Peter's or the Pope's Supremacy from those words Feed my Sheep For their Trent Council which if the Pope say true was Divinely Inspired and therefore Infallible and if he do not say true he himself was not only fallible but actually false expresly tells us That not only every Bishop but every one who had Cure of Souls was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel to rule and feed his Sheep by offering Sacrifices for them by preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments by good Example by a Paternal Care of the Poor and All Other Pastoral Offices And this is there proved by Texts quoted in the Margent which with some others are the very same with those I have a little before cited out of the Acts of the Apostles and St. Peters Epistle Nor those only but this very place of St. John on which they would build Peter's Supremacy is Cited in the Margent as containing a Precept obliging not Peter only but All who had Cure of souls to feed Christ's sheep Now if those words Feed my sheep contain Praeceptum a Precept Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty then they do not contain what they pretend Donum a Donation of Supremacy 4. But Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Innocent III. in their before mention'd Constitutions tell us that by Oves meas our blessed Saviour means All his sheep All Christians in the World Because he does not speak singularitèr of these or those but Generalitèr of his sheep Whence they and many after them conclude Thaâ— our blessed Saviour Committed all his Sheep Universally to Peter's Care so that even the Apostles being his Sheep were committed to Peter's Care and by Consequence he became their Pastor and Superior Certainly they who reason at this rate and so irrationally may possibly be fit Pastors to feed Sheep and Oxen and such other brutish Cattle but surely not to feed Men and Christians For 1. Feed my sheep as all know unless they bâ— such as those two Popes were is an Indefinite Proposition and then any Novice or youngâ— Sophister in the University could have truly told them That Propositio indefinita in materiâ— Contingenti as this evidently is aequivalet particulari When we say men are young or wise or learned we mean not all but some are such So he who says Christ's sheep are to be fed by Peter must mean some of them are to be fed by him pro loco tempore as he had place and time to meet with them It being impossible he should feed them all There were many thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep whom Peter never did nor could see nor they hear him And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tye him to Impossibilities 2. When they say which is evidently untrue that by those words Feed my sheep all the Faithful are meant and are Committed to Peter's care and charge and therefore the Apostles themselves being our Saviour's Sheep as well as others are part of his Charge and under his Jurisdiction This they say indeed usually but miserably mistaken only say it For they neither have nor can have any Just Ground or Reason for it For it is certain 1. That our blessed Saviour is to his whole Church the only High Priest the Prince of all the Pastors and the Grand Shepherd of the sheep and as King has Imperial Power to Rule and Govern them 2. It is certain the Apostles from and under him are Pastores and Shepherds as well as Peter to feed the Flock But their Power is Ministerial not Imperial Even the Apostleship it self is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ministery and they Ministers of Christ and his Church Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd they are Sheep even Peter himself yet on Earth they are Shepherds only not Sheep neither in respect of the Church over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds nor in relation one to another Paul or James or John are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter to be fed and ruled by him then he to be fed and ruled by them And therefore to say as our Adversaries vainly do that in those words Feed my sheep Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles as his Charge who were Shepherds only and Sheep to no Superior Pastor except our blessed Saviour And by their Apostolical Commission Equal to himself is irrational without any ground in Scripture or purer Antiquity There is another Metaphor concerning the Apostles and their Feeding and Building the Church which may illustrate this business All the Apostles as well and as much as Peter are in Scripture call'd Foundations 〈◊〉 the Church converted fed and confirm'd by them In respect of Christ our blessed Saviour who is the only prime and principal firmâ— Rock on which the Church is built they are all of them Superstructions but in respect of the Christian Church Foundations and that without any dependence upon Peter he is not the Foundation on which they are built but but both he and they immediately upon the Prime Rock and Foundation Jesus Christ So that as the Apostles are Superstructures in the House of God the Church in Respect of Christ the Prime firm Foundation and none of them Superstructures in respect of Peter being neither built upon him nor made Superstructions by him by
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
shall be bound in Heaven we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Excommunicate all who shew him any favour or obey him as Emperor And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us That the Pope has by Divine Right not by any Human Constitutions that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction over the Vniversal Church as Peter's Successor sitting in his Chair and as Vicar of Christ. 5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence is That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They seem to be in Love with these words Dabo Tibi Claves c. For in their Offices for only two of St. Peter's Festivals they are repeated almost Twenty times But how Impertinent this is to prove any Supremacy much less their Papal Monarchy will evidently appear in that this Power of the Keys which they would appropriate to the Pope was given to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter as is proved before nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World For 1. So their own Roman Breviary published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth and afterwards revised by Clement the Eighth and Vrban the Eighth expresly says for having told us that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter it follows That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church 2. Their Trent Catechism having spoke of the Power of the Keys afterwards tells us to whom our blessed Saviour gave and concredited that Power before he Ascended into Heaven And it was To the Bishops and Presbyters So that Catechism publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius the Fifth And 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentick Form how they Ordain a Priest in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest in the very same words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you remit they are remitted And whose sins you retain they are retained 4. Lastly The Trent Fathers are yet if that be possible more express For speaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolution They declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys belong to any save The Bishops and Presbyters and who think those words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose remit and retain sins In which words the Council does I suppose Infallibly Declare at least in our Adversaries Opinion 1. That those two Texts which are cited in the Margent of the Council are to be understood of the Power of the Keys though in one of them that of John the Keys be not expresly named 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters but to none else neither to Lay-men nor any Inferior Orders By the Premisses I think it evident and confess'd by our Adversaries that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys as well as Peter and since they left the World every Bishop and Priest as well as the Pope Whence it further and manifestly follows That 't is impossible that the Bishop of Rome or any of his party should as they vainly indeavor prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys which is common and really possess'd by so many thousands beside himself For this is just as if Titius should brag that he is far richer then Sempronius because he has Five hundred pounds per Annum when Sempronius has an equal Estate and of the very same Value Or as if Sejus should say he had far greater Power then Cajus when the Power given them by the Emperor was equal and the same And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges that in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions received into the Body of their Canon Law Dabo Tibi Claves this Power of the Keys is laid as a Sandy and Insignificant Foundation on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Supremacy I shall Instance only in two though I might in many more 1. In that famous Decretal of Innocent the Third before cited wherein he impiously and ridiculously indeavors to prove that the Papal Dignity is as much greater then the Imperial as the Sun is greater than the Moon And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position he comes at last to this Dabo Tibi Claves to the Power of the Keys as the most known ground of his Supremacy 2. The second Instance is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth in the Council of Lions It is Extant in the Canon Law and two things there prefix'd to that most Impious Decretal 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council for a perpetual memory of it And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichristian Pride and Impiety 2. That the Pope can Depose the Emperor for lawful Causes And then in that Impious Decretal he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of the Keys which he says was given to him in Peter when our blessed Saviour said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven c. so he and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past applies that Power of the Keys which is purely spiritual to carnal and temporal ends and impious purposes And here it seems to me Considerable and I believe will seem so to pious and dis-interessed Persons that in former Roman Breviaries as also in our Portiforium or Breviary of Sarum and in the Missals of Salisbury and Hereford we have this Prayer 1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo Collatis Clavibus Regni Coelestis Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti Concede ut Intercessionis ejus Auxilio c. O God who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls grant that by the help of his Intercession c. Where it is evident that in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too the Power of the Keys is spiritual to bind mens souls if Impenitent and if Contrite and truly Penitent to loose them I say spiritual for edification and saving mens souls and not temporal for Deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of
Vniverse of the whole World it follows That all Kings and Emperors are his Subjects and he their Supream Lord and Sovereign and so far greater in Power then any one or all of them together And least we should mistake and undervalue his Papal Greatness Pope Innocent the Third told the Emperor of Constantinople and has told us in the Body of their approved and received Law That the Pope is as much greater then the Emperor as the Sun is greater then the Moon And here the Author of the Gloss Bernardus de Botono a great Lawyer but no good Astronmer tells us That the Sun is 47. times greater then the Moon and so by that Computation the Pope is 47. times greater then the Emperor This is pretty well and gives so vast a Magnitude to the Pope above the Emperor that a man would think it might satisfie his Ambition so that he needed not ask nor his greatest Flatterers give him more Yet they do give much more For in a Marginal Note on the said Chapter in their most Correct Editions of their Law we are told That the Sun is greater then the Moon Quinquagies Septies 57. times and so the Pope so much greater then the Emperor But this is not all Laurentius a Canonist in the same place tells us That it is evident that the Sun is 7744 ½ greater then the Moon and so the Pope omitting the Fraction Seaven thousand seaven hundred and forty four times greater then the Emperor This is so prodigiously erroneous and impious as none save their most Holy and Infallible Guide could be guilty of such Error and Impiety But a Learned Roman Catholick who understood Astronomy and the Magnitude of the Sun much better then the Pope or his Parasites seriously tells us that the Sun is greater then the Moon 6539. times And so by the Popes Logick and Decretal Definition and the Computation of his best Artists he must be 6539. times greater then the Emperor Monstrous Pride and Ignorance which is so far from proving him to be our blessed Saviours Vicar that it evidently proves him to be that Man of Sin the great Antichrist who exalts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Kings and Emperors Certainly Antichrist cannot exalt himself more then to declare to the World as the Pope here does in his Publick Laws and Constitutions that he is 6539. times greater then any King or Emperor So that although St. Paul and Peter too acknowledged the Emperors Power Supream and required that all men even the Pope if he were a man should conscienciously obey them though St. Paul appeal not to Peter but to Caesar as Supream Though Athanasius say That there lay no Appeal from the Emperor but to God and though Tertullian say That the Emperor was Solo Deo minor and the Bishops of Rome for almost One thousand years after our blessed Saviour acknowledged the Emperors their Sovereign Lords yet Hildebrand and his Successors have as above exalted themselves far above all that is call'd God and have that indelible Character of Antichrist Q. E. D. 2. And they further say That this Vniversal Monarchy is given him by God himself and so he has it not by any Human Right or Injust Usurpation but Jure Divino by the Law of God and a Right derived from him and this is said not once only nor by any private Person whose Authority might be question'd but many times in their Authentick Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent and revised and publish'd by the Authority and Command of three Popes successively so that we may be sure they approve it That Breviary has it thus speaking of Peter Thou art Prince of the Apostles And God hath Given Thee All the Kingdoms of the World These are the words of that Authentick Breviary approved and confirm'd by the Authority of those three Popes before mentioned as appears by their Bull prefix'd to the Edition and is now in publick use in their Church So that he Exalts himself as Universal Monarch over all the Kings and Kingdoms in the World and that as he impiously pretends by a Divine Right and the Donation of God himself And hence it is That not only the Canonists the constant and great Parasites of the Pope but even the Learned Divines of the Roman Church give the Pope and he Approves and Assumes such Extravagant and Blasphemous Titles as none but the Man of Sin who Exalts himself above all that is called God would approve To pass by many hundreds of the like nature I shall Instance only in one Stapleton an English man and a very Learned Professor of Divinity at Doway in his Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Gregory the Thirteenth calls that Pope The Highest Top and Prince of the Catholick Church The Master of the whole World and on Earth The Supream God or Deity Certainly â—he who approves and admits such Titles to be given him Exalts himself above all that is called God and so has the Character of Antichrist mention'd by the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. 4. And here though I intended it not I shall crave leave to add two or three Passages more which casually come in my way and memory and are very pertinent to our present purpose 1. The Gloss on their Canon Law tells us That the Pope is neither God nor Man but something more then Man And though this Impious and Blasphemous Gloss was Censured to be left out by the Master of the Sacred Pallace Yet Clement the Eighth thought otherwise and those words are still in the best Edition of the Canon Law only with this Note in the Margent Haec verba sunt sano modo intelligenda prâ—lata enim sunt ad Ostendendum Amplissimam Pontificis Rom. Potestatem But this Gloss is something modest though it make the Pope more then Man and being in Verse may have some Poetical Licence allow'd 2. But another Gloss in plain Prose expresly says That it is our Lord God the Pope For although in some Old Editions of the Canon Law it was only Our Lord the Pope yet now in the most Correct Editions of that Law confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth it is without any Qualification in the Margent our Lord God the Pope 3. And to make the Blasphemy full and evidently Antichristian Ant. Puccius in an Oration made by him in their General Lateran Council speaking to Pope Leo the Tenth says That the Rayes of His Divine Majesty did dazle his Eyes Impious and Antichristian Pride and Blasphemy yet approved at Rome and by themselves to their shame published to the World Nor is this all He pretends to and assumes an Infallibility and that of so high a Nature that all his Definitions and Determinations of Doubts whether è Cathedrâ or not whether in a General Council or out of it to be the
That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants But when this was heard at Rome the Pope and his Sacred Congregation as they call it Condemned that Negative Proposition as Heretical and Summon'd the Subscribers to Rome where Prisons and Censures as Father Caron tells us were prepared for them Whence it is Evident that to deny the Popes Power to Depose and Kill Protestant Princes is at Rome declared Heretical and therefore that he has a Power to Depose and Kill is a part of their Catholick Creed and believ'd three Whence it further follows that they do think such Killing of Protestants to be no Murder nor those who kill them out of Zeal to the Catholick Cause Murderers 5. When Raymundus Lullus a man famous in his time and after it had said and in his Writings published That it was unlawful and impious to kill and murder Hereticks for he had seen and heard of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses and such as at Rome were call'd Hereticks in and before his time Nic. Eymericus Inquisitor of Arragon complains of him and his Writings to Pope Gregory the Eleventh who in full Consistory with the Council of his Cardinals damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Hereticks 6. And Lastly Pope Leo the Tenth in his Oecumenical so they call it Lateran Council Sacro approbante Concilio with the Consent and Approbation of that Council declares That our blessed Saviour Did Institute Peter and his Successors his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of The Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that Whosoever would not as no true Protestant ever would or could was to be punished with Death The Pope was not pleased to tell us what Book of Kings for in their Vulgar Latin Version there are four Books of that name nor what Chapter or Verse he meant and he did wisely to conceal what Place in those Books he intended for had he nam'd any particular place though he pretended to Infallibility his folly would have much sooner appeared It is indeed ridiculous for any man to think that any thing said in those Books of Kings can prove that our blessed Saviour Constituted a Vicar General over his whole Christian Church with power to kill all who would not comply with him and that Peter and his Successors the Popes were the men seeing there is not one Syllable of all or any of this in any of the four Books of Kings Nor any Text from which it may with any sense or probability be deduc'd Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils Peter Crab Surius Binius Labbe c. supply'd that defect and told us what place Pope Leo meant and from which he or they could prove the Popes Power to kill all who comply'd not with his Commands I know that Crab Surius and Binius though Labbe has omitted it as Impertinent have in their Editions of the Councils cited in their Margents Deut. 17. for a proof of that Erroneus and Impious Position it seems their Infallible Judge mistook Kings for Deuteronomy or that they could find nothing in any Book of Kings for the Popes purpose But they name not the Verse though I believe it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean Where 't is said That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge That Man shall Dye This I say is altogether impertinent as to the proof of the Popes Position For admit which is manifestly untrue that by Priest here the High Priest only was meant yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say Whosoever disobey'd the Sentence of the High Priest in the Jewish Church must be put to death Ergo Whoever disobeys the Pope in the Christian Church must be so too This I say is Inconsequent for the Priests in the Jewish Church not only the High Priest but other Priests and Levites by the express Law of God had as Judges in many Cases Power of Life and Death but in the Gospel our blessed Saviour left no such Power to his Apostles and their Successors Excommunication is the highest Punishment Peter or any or all the Apostles could inflict by any Authority from our blessed Saviour in the Christian Church and this Power succeeded Intersection or putting to death in the Judaical Church So St. Augustin expresly tells us and to him I refer the Reader By the Premisses I think it may appear that if after the Popes Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth any of her Popish Subjects Laity or Clergy Regular or Secular had by taking Arms publickly or by Poyson or Pistol Privately taken away her life according to their approved Principles it had been no Rebellion Treason or Murder but in their Opinion an Action Just and Innocent But this though too much is not all their Error and Impiety rises higher For 4. Had any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects after the Popes Excommunication kill'd her that Execrable Fact had been so far from being Murder that in their opinion it had been an Action not only Indifferent or Morally good but Meritorious In the year 1586. which was the Nine and twentieth of Elizabeth in the Colledge of Rhemes Giffard Dr. of Divinity Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson Priests had so possess'd the English Seminaries with a belief of this Doctrine That John Savage willingly and gladly vowed to kill the Queen The Story is in Cambden an Historian of unquestionable truth and fidelity After this Walpoole the English Jesuite perswades Edward Squire that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen tells him it might easily be done by Poysoning the Pomel of her Sadle gives him the Poyson Squire undertakes it Walpoole blesseth him and promises him Eternal Salvation and so having sworn him to Secresie sends him into England where notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings he was taken confess'd all this and was Executed in the year 1598. And Camdben there tells us That a Pestilent Opinion as he truly calls it was got amongst the Popish Party even amongst their Priests That to take away Kings Excommunicate was Nothing Else but to Weed the Cockle out of the Lords Field It is true none of those impious and damnable Designs had their desir'd Effect God Almighty protecting that good Queen it being impossible that any Power or Policy should prevail against his Providence yet the Matter of Fact confessed by themselves or evidently proved by Legal Witnesses manifestly shews that they thought killing the Queen for the benefit of their Catholick Cause was a Meritorious Work which they designed to do and had their Ability been Equal to their Impiety would have done 2. Nor was this the private opinion of some Priests and Jesuits only but the definitive Sentence of several Popes their Infallible and Supream Judges publickly declared and that we may be sure they are obligatory
He never was at Rome 2. He was not sent save to the lost Sheep of the Hoâ—â— of Israel not in Person sure not to be a Bishop of any Gentile Church 3. There was no Christian Church at Rome while he liv'd of which he could be Bishop 4. Our blessed Saviour remains a Priest for ever and cannot have any Successor Heb. 5. 6. And therefore Bellarm. justly denies ouâ— B. Saviour to have any Successor because he is Pontifex aeternus Bellar. de Script Eccles. in T. Aquia Object l Apostolicus non nisi à Cardinalibus inthronizaendus Gratian. Dist. 79. Part. 1. ibidem Can. 1. Alitèr inthronizatus non est Papa vel Apostolicus sed Apostaticus Can. si Papa 6. Dist. 4. In â—emmate Damnatur Apostolicus suae fraternae salutis negligens m Bellarmine gives us a Catalogue of fifteen such Papal Titles which are these Papa Pater Patrum Christianorum Pontifex summus Sacerdos Princeps Sacerdotum Vicarius Christi Caput Ecclesiae Fundamentum Ecclesiae Pastor Ovilis Domini Pater Doctor Omnium Fidelium Rector Domus Dei Custos vineae Dei Sponsus Ecclesiae Dei Apostolicae Sedis Praesul Episcopus Vniversalis ex quibus Omnibus Singulis Apertè Colligitur Ejus Primatus De Romano Pont. lib. 2. cap. 31. Answer n Cum Episcopus Civitatis fuerit demortuus Eligitur alius veniunt ad Apostolicum cum Electo ut cis Consecret Episcopum Alcuinus de Divinis Officiis Cap. 36. o Petrus de Marca de Concordiâ Sacerdotij Imperij Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 67. p Sequens aetas abstinuit deinceps Apostolici Titulus Soli Summo Pontifici attributus est ab Authoribus Idem Ibidem q The Archbishop of Paris next before cited amonst the Apostolical Churches besides those I have named reckons Alexandria Ephesus Ancyra Corinth Thessalonica and he might have added Philippi c. De Concordiâ Sacred Imperij lib. 7. cap. 4. § 7. Tom. 2. p. 224. for Tertullian adds it in the Place next cited r Age jam qui voles Curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas Ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis Praesidentur apud quas Ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur sonantes vocem repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proxima est Tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe â—s à Macedoniâ habes Philippos aut Thessalonicenses Si potes in Afiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam c. Tertullian de Praescript cap. 36. pag. 338. Edit Pamelij 1662. s Ecclesiae Rom. specialius in Petro Coeli Terraeque retineâ— habenas Gratian. Can. Si Papa 6. Dist. 40. t Jus Successionis Pontificum Romanorum in eofundatur quod Petrus Sedem suam Jubente Domino Romae Collocaverit Bellarm de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. u Ecclesia Antiocheia hos Anno Christi 39. à Petro Instituta 7. Annis ab eodem administrata Baron ad An. Christ. 39. §. 9. Tom. 1. p. 269. Edit Antverp 1612. x Baron ibid. §. 18. p. 272. and in their present Roman Breviary Antverp 1660. They have a Holy-day for St. Peter's Installment at Antioch In Cathedrâ Sancti Petri Antiochiae so they call it In parte Breviarij Hiemali ad diem 22. Februarij And we are there told that that Festival was call'd Cathedra Petri Quia Primus Apostolorum Petrus hodiè Episcopatus Cathedram suscipisse referatur Ibid. Lect. 3. p. 760. Col. 2. And for this they cite St. Augustin De Sanctis Serm. 15. n known supposititius and spurius scrap unworthily father'd on St. Augustin y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hic Primus Episcopalem Cathedram caepit cum ei Ante Coeteros Omnes Suum ei in Terris Thronum Dominus Tradisset Epiphanius Adversus Haeres lib. 3. Tom. 2. Haeres 78. §. 7. pag. 1039. B. z 1. Pet. 2. 25. a Rev. 17. 14. 19. 16. b Matth. 10. 6. 15. 24. Rom. 15. 8. c Luk. 10. 1. 2. d Gal. 2. 9. e Act. 15. 13. 19. 20. f God your King so Samuel tells them and so 1. Sam. 8. 7. and cap. 10. 19. g So Josephus and Philo call the Jewish Government from Moses to Saul God was personally their King 1. He himself Personally did give them all their Laws 2. He Personally sent his Vice-Roys Moses Joshua and all the Judges 3. He received and personally answered all their last Appeals which are evident Characters that he was their Supream Power their King h Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus Sapientiae Intellectûs Edocta declarat c. Concil Trid. Sess. 21. de Communione cap. 1. And yet what it declares there is most evidently untrue i Christus à Terris Ascensurus ad Coelos Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit tanquam Praesides ac Judices ad quos Omnia Mortalia Crimina deferantur Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ cap. 5. De Confessione vid. Aquinat part 3. Quaest. 8. Art 6. in Corpore k Aquin. 2. 2. Quaest. 88. Art 12. Praelatus gerit Vicem Christi l 2. Cor. 2. 10. m Si periculum mortis immineat approbatúsque desit Confessarius Quilibet Sacerdos Potest à Quibuscunque Censuris Pecatis absolvere Rituale Romanum Pauli Papae 5. Jussu Editum Antverp 1652. De Sacramento Poenitentiae pag. 61. 65. n Cum Jesu Christi Vices teneamus in Terris NobÃsque in Petri personâ dictum sit Quodcunque Ligaveris c. Memoratum Principem Omni Dignitate privatum denunciamus Sententiando privamus Omnésque ei Juramento Fidelitatis astrictos à juramento absolvimus inhibentes ne quisquam de Coetero ei ut Imperatori pareat qui Ipsi favorem aut auxillum praestiterint sint Ipso facto Excommunicati Cap. ad Apostolicae 2. Extra de Sent. re judicata vid. Cap. Quanto 3. Extra de Translatione Episcopi o Cum in Petri Cathedrâ Sedeat summum in eo Dignitatis gradum non ullis humanis Constitutionibus sed divinitùs datum agnoscit Estque Moderator Vniversalis Ecclesiae ut Petri Successor in terris verus Christi Vicarius Ita Catechis Trident. part 2. cap. 7. de Ordinis Sacramento §. 28. vid. etiam Bullarium Romanum Tom. 1. pag. 347. Col. 1. §. 6. where Alexand. Papa 6. gives all the West-Indies to the King of Spain as Vicar of Christ. p Vid. Breviarium Romanum in Cathedrâ S. Petri Antiochiae Febr. 22. in Festo Cathedrae S. Petri qua Romae primum Sedet Jan. 18. Breviarij parte Hiemali q Petro dedit Claves transivit quidem etiam in Alios Apostolos vis potestatis illius in Omnes Ecclesiae Principes Breviar Rom. in Festo Cathedr S. Petri Antioch Febr. 22. Lect. 9. Part. Hiemali p. 762. Edit Antverp 1660. r Part.