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
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
had A Great Appearance of Piety because they Lived Justly Before Men Believ'd All Things well of God and All the Articles of the Creed The Twelve Articles of their New Trent Creed were neither then believ'd nor known no not at Rome Well if all this be true and it is their Enemy who gives them this ample Testimony what was it that made this Sect of all others the most pernicious to the Church of Rome Certainly the Antiquity or generality of this Sect the Piety of their Lives their believing all things well of God and all the Articles of the Creed none of these could be â—ernicious to any Truth or any True Church What was it then Why he tells us in the next words that it was only this They Blasphemed or spake ill of the Church and Clergy of Rome And as he Confesses The Multitude of the Laity easily believed them which is an evident Argument that it was neither incredible nor altogether improbable which the Multitude of the Laiety so easily believed Two things indeed those poor persecuted Waldenses said which were very true and most pernicious to the Church of Rome for nothing is more pernicious to darkness and error then light and truth 1. They said That the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation 2. That the Pope was the Head of all the Errors in that Antichristian Church And on this Account it was that the Church of Rome did call those poor Waldenses Hereticks and as such did with Fire and Sword and the utmost Cruelty persecute them For as is aforesaid he is an Heretick at Rome who contradicts or disbelieves the Canons and Constitutions of that Church although he do not really disbelieve any Divine Truth contain'd in the Canon of Scripture Now as it was with the poor Waldenses so we are sure it has been is and will be with all Protestants Princes and People Supream or Subjects they are at Rome declared Hereticks and liable to all the Punishments of that which they are pleas'd to call Heresie and when they have opportunity and ability those Punishments will certainly be Inflicted without any Pity or Mercy And this brings me to the third Inquiry What those Punishments are And here because the Punishments of Heresie are very many and very great it is neither my present business nor purpose particularly to set them all down and explain them Only I shall in favour to the Ordinary Reader for to the Learned they are better known name some Authors where he may find a Distinct and full Explication of the Nature of Heresie according to the Popish Principles and the Number of its Punishments And here 1. The Gloss of their Canon Law reduces the Punishments of Hereticks to Four Heads in the General Hereticks says the Glossator are to be punished either 1. By Excommunication 2. Deposition 3. Loss of all their Goods 4. By Military Persecution that is by Fire and Sword by War and armed Souldiers This is approved by several of their Learned Writers 2. For the Body of the Canon Law to pass by Gratian and his Decretum those who have a mind and leasure may consult the Titles De Haereticis which occur in the Decretals of Greg. 9. of Bonis 8. in the Clementines Extravagantes Communes and in the lately added Seaventh Book of the Decretals with the Glosses and Panormitan's large Comment upon them 3. For the Punishment of Hereticks by the Civil Laws they who have a mind to know may consult Justinians Code Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis with the Gloss there And especially the Theodosian Code Lib. 16. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis Samaritanis with the Larger and most Learned Notes of Jacobus Gothofredus in the Edition of the Codex Theodosianus at Lions 1665. Tom. 6. pag. 104. To these may be added the Severe Laws of the Emperor Friderick the Second made in pursuance of the Lateran Council and though he had little reason for it to gratifie the Pope in his barbarous designs to ruin all those he call'd generally miscall'd Hereticks which Laws as we may be sure they would the Pope and his Party did highly approve And have referr'd them into the Body of their Canon Law 7. Decretalium Lib. 5. Tit. 3. Capp 1. 2. In Edit Corporis Juris Can. Lugduni Anno 1661. 4. And for a full and particular Explication of those Laws and the Quality of the Punishments of Hereticks Inflicted by them their Casuists and Canonists may be consulted Amongst many others such as these Filliucius Durantus Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus Azorius Paul Layman Raynerius Johan de Turrecremata Cardinal Hostiensis and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Terraconensis a most Learned Canonist and a very useful Book has given us a Catalogue of their Canons De poenis quae sunt Hoereticis Constitutae In short whoever has a mind opportunity and ability to Consult the aforemention'd Authors or such others may easily find the Number and Nature of those Punishments which by their Impious Papal Canons and Constitutions are to be Inflicted on those better Christians then themselves they are pleased to call Hereticks 10. Concerning this Impious Bull containing the Damnation as he calls it and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth by Pope Pius the Fifth it is further to be observed That it is no new thing For Queen Elizabeth was actually Excommunicate before 1. In their famous Bulla Coenae Domini take famous in which sense you will the worst is good enough wherein they do at Rome Anathematize and Curse all Protestants both Kings and Subjects Princes and Common People It is called Bulla Coenae Domini because it is published every year on Maundy Thursday the Day in which our blessed Saviour Instituted Coenam Domini the Sacrament of his last Supper And here by the way we may observe the difference between Christ and his pretended Vicar Antichrist 1. On that Day our blessed Saviour Institutes that Sacrament as a blessing and seal of the mutual Love between him and his Church and of the Communion and Charity of Christians amongst themselves but the Pope far otherwise and unlike him whose Vicar he pretends to be on the very same Day without and against Christian Charity Anathematizes and Curses the greatest part of Christians 2. Our blessed Saviour was that Day ready to Dye for the Salvation of Sinners but his pretended Vicar is ready on the same Day and so far as he is able does actually Damn the greatest part of the Christian World and has been drunk with the blood of the Saints 3. Nor did Queen Elizabeth stand Accursed before Pius the Fifth's Excommunication of her only in that Bulla Coenae but in several other Papal Bulls I shall only name one and because it is of signal Consequence and to our present
was 25. years Bishop of Rome and actually transferred that Power to his Successor there or that our blessed Saviour ever had or exercis'd such a terrene and temporal power as they pretend the Pope as his Vicar has from him I say let them make all or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture and I will confess and retract my error Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal when I require Scripture proof For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right and this their Popes Canonists and Divines with great noise and confidence but no reason endeavour to prove from Scripture miserably mistaken and misapply'd I know that their late Jesuitical Methodists so much magnify'd by their Party require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory c. by express words of Scripture not admitting of Consequences however deduced from plain Texts as Premisses This method of theirs being irrational and demonstrated so to be I shall not tye them too But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture or by good Consequences deduced from it or what they pretend to Vniversal and Apostolical Tradition I shall admit the proof Nay I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further and if that be possible fairer offers 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever that any Christian Church in the World acknowledg'd or the Church of Rome her self assumed and publickly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy as now they pretend to for 1000. years after our B. Saviour and for my own part I will confess and retract my Error 2. Let them prove by any such concluding reason that any Church in the World Eastern or Western Greek or Latin did acknowledge what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for the Popes Infallibility and his Supremacy over all General Councils for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour and for my part Cedat Jülus Agris manus dabimus captivas I will retract what here I have affirmed and be what I hope I never shall be their Proselyte To Conclude I have no more to say my Adversaries will think I have said too much save only to desire the Readers who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction to read and consider the Margent as well as the Text. In this they have my Positions and the proofs of them in plain English In the Margent the Authorities and Authors I rely upon in their own words and the Language in which they writ and I have for the Readers ease not my own cited not only the Authors and their Books but the Chapter Paragraph Page and mostly the Editions of them That so the Reader may with more ease find the places quoted and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright It is notoriously known that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils many spurious Decretals and supposititious Tracts under the names of Primitive Fathers and ancient Bishops that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate Councils and thousands of other Authors making them by adding and substracting words or Sentences say what they never meant or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say and this they themselves have without shame or honesty publickly own'd in their Expurgatory Indices and after all this fraud and falsification of Records these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors are continually produced by them for proofs of their Errors against Protestants who well know and as many sober men of their own Communion justly condemn such impious Roman Arts Nec tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Christus eget Truth needs no such forg'd and false Medium's to maintain it nor will any honest man use them Sure I am I have not in this Discourse built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony nor of any supposititious or spurious ones The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted and rely upon are drawn from Scripture the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils or which ad hominem must be valid from their own Councils the Popes Bulls their Canon Law their Casuists Schoolmen Summists the Trent Catechism the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church their approved and received Publick Offices such as their Missal Breviary Ritual Pontifical c. which Authorities if I do not misquote or mistake their meaning are and to them must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them But let the Evidence of the Testimonies and the Authority of the Authors quoted be what it will I have little hope that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn firmly to believe their new Trent Creed the whole Body of Popish Errors to their last breath and to Anathematize and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it For while they are possess'd with these Principles it may be truly said of them what was said of the Luciferian Hereticks in St. Hierome Facilius cos Vinci posse quam persuaderi you may sooner bassle then perswade them They will in despite of Premisses hold the Conclusion nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholick Cause However that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth with a firm belief and in dangerous times upon undanted and pious profession of it is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England and her Adherents with an Addition of other Punishments Pius Bishop Servant to God's Servants for a perpetual memorial of the matter HE that reigneth on High to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth committed one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church out of which there is no Salvation to one alone upon Earth namely to Peter the Prince of the Apostles and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome to be governed in fulness of Power Him alone he made Prince over all People and all Kingdoms to pluck up destroy scatter consume plant and build that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit and present them spotless and umblameable to their Saviour Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church do spare no pains labouring with all earnestness that Unity and the Catholick Religion which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Children's
Hereticks Pope Julius II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor as to all the Punishments contain'd in it Excommunicates and Curses all Persons Ecclesiastical and Secular of what Dignity soever though Kings who shall offend against that Constitution and Decrees that they shall have their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron The Damnation then intended and threatned in this Impious Bull of Pius V. as in other Papal Bulls of the like nature is not only some Temporal loss and damage though that also be included and expressed but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul Which further appears by that Famous or indeed Infamous Erroneous and Ridiculous Constitution of Boniface VIII wherein having said That there is but one Catholick Church out of which there is no Salvation and that our Blessed Saviour made Peter and his Successors his Vicarij Vice-Gerents and Heads of that Church he adds That whoever are not of that Church and in Subjection and Obedient to the Pope can have no Salvation And Pius V. in this very Bull expresly says the same For 1. He says That out of the Apostolick Church he means evidently his own Roman Church there is no Salvation 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an Heretick that she and all her Adherents had Incurr'd an Anathema and Malediction were Excommunicate and cut off from the Body of Christ. So that Queen Elizabeth and all her Loyal Protestant Subjects who never were nor could be as without great Error and Impiety they could not subject to the Pope nor Members of his Apostolical Church are by this Bull Eternally Damn'd 4. But this is not all for we have greater Evidence that by the word Damnation in their Bulls wherein all Hereticks Protestants you may be sure who without Truth or Charity they call so are Curs'd and Excommunicated they do and must mean Eternal Damnation For 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran Council which with them is General and Oecumenial innovates and establisheth with the Approbation and Consent of that Council the aforesaid Doctrine and Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII 2. The Trent Council does so too and absolutely Anathematizes and Damns all those who do not believe their whole new Creed in which there is not one true Article but all Erroneous many Superstitious and Impious and tells us It is the Catholick Faith without the belief of which no man can be saved and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath and Anathematize all who do not And which is further very considerable and pertinent to confirm what is abovesaid they do in that Oath promise vow and swear to receive and imbrace All Things delivered defined and declared in their General Councils and All the Constitutions of their Church For these Particulars are parts of that new Creed to the Belief and Profession of which they are sworn And the Trent Council it self as well as the Pope in that Creed requires that they make such a Profession Whence it evidently follows that all their Bishops all Regulars of what Order soever who are provided of Monasteries Religious Houses c. All Canons and Dignitaries in their Church all who have any Cure of Souls and all who profess and teach any of the Liberal Arts c. for all these are required to take that Oath are sworn to receive believe and profess all the Desinitions of the Lateran Council under Leo. X. and the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII which denounces Damnation to all those who submit not to the Pope and imbrace not their Popish Religion and hence it further and as evidently follows that not only Queen Elizabeth but all good Protestants then and ever since who neither did nor without great Error and Impiety could so submit to their Popes or believe their New Creed are by their Papal and uncharitable Divinity Eternally Damn'd So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul which is threatned and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth and such other Excommunications of those whom they call Hereticks 4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull we are told by the Pope That our Blessed Saviour committed the Government of His Church with all plenitude and fulness of Power to Peter and his Successors And that we might know how great the Power was over all Kings and Kingdoms he miserably misapplies a Text in Jeremy and says That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter alone a Prince over All Nations and All Kingdoms to Pull up and Throw down to Dissipate and Destroy to Plant and Build in Ordine ad Spiritualia in Order to the Salvation of his Faithful People so that if we may believe this Infallible Expositor the same Power which God gave Jeremy over all Nations and Kingdoms to pull up and destroy them the very same did our blessed Saviour give to Peter and his Successors Nor is Pius V. the only Pope who makes use of that Text to prove their extravagant Papal Power over Kings Pope Alexander III. having told some of his Brethren how the Emperor held his Stirrup when he mounted his Palfrey In his next Constitution having said That the Diligence of the Bishops and Pastors was necessary to pull up and cut off Hereticks and wicked men in the Church he Cites the place of Jeremy to prove it and says That the Power over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up cast down and destroy was Given to Jeremy and In Him to the Evangelical Priest to Peter and his Successors as he there expresly explains it And Pope Paul III. tells us That he was Vicar of Christ our blessed Saviour and plac'd in the Throne of Justice Above All Kings in the whole World According to the Prophecy of Jeremy And then Cites the words of Jeremy before mention'd And to omit others Pope Boniface VIII Cites the same Text though to as little purpose to the same end to prove the Popes power above Kings so as to punish and depose them And before him Innocent III. in his wild and irrational Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople Cites the same Text of Jeremy and another Gen. 1. 16. more impertinent if that be possible to prove the vast Power of Popes above all Kings and Emperors By all which Papal Bulls and Constitutions as by many others of the like nature it may evidently appear that they challenge a Power to depose Kings and that they bring the Text of Jeremy as a ground and proof of it But although their Popes brag That they have all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts and that they are Supream and Infallible Judges in all Controversies of Faith yet their whole Discourse and Deductions from the Text of the Prophet Jeremy is inconsequent and indeed ridiculous and no way concerns either Peter or any of his
Princeps Omnium Apostolorum And then it there follows Christus Petrum Vniversi Fidelium Generis Caput ut Qui ei successit Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem habere voluerit It was our blessed Saviour's will That Peter should have The same Power our blessed Saviour had Sed Apage nugas Impias Blasphemas The bare recitation of such wild Positions should and will be Confutation enough to all sober Christians who are solicitous to maintain our blessed Saviour's Honor and will never give that Place or Power to the Pope or Peter which is solely and eternally due to their Redeemer 3. But further when our Adversaries upon that Place of Matthew Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church would have us believe That Peter was that Rock while he liv'd and his Successors after him And thence infer their Supremacy They must pardon our Infidelity if we believe it not For 1. They do or might know that not only Protestants but the Fathers and Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers generally by Rock in that Text understand not Peter's Person but either the Profession of his Faith he there made or our blessed Saviour But our Adversaries like not this Doctrine And therefore when Hilary had truly said Vnum hoc est immobile fundamentum Vna Haec est foelix fidei Petra Petri Ore Confessa and Erasmus had put this Note in the Margent Petram Interpretatur Ipsam Fidei Professionem and when the same Erasmus on Matth. XVI 18. had cited Augustin for the same sense of the place which Hilary gives And had put in the Margent Ecclesia non est fundata super Petrum The Spanish Inquisitors command it to be blotted out of Erasmus his Text and Margent Although Hilary and Augustin and many others as they well knew said the same thing 2. And this truth is so Evident that not only the Fathers and Ancient Authors but Sober and Learned men in the Church of Rome even in darkest times when Popery unhappily prevailed were of the same Judgment And by the Rock in this Place of Matthew upon this Rock I will build my Church understand not Peter but that Confession of his Faith there made to be meant So John Semeca Author of the Gloss upon Gratian and Nic. Lyranus and Ansel. Laudunensis Author of the Interlineary Gloss upon his Text of Matthew by the Rock on which the Church was built understand Christ our blessed Saviour and not Peter And a late Learned Sorbon Doctor though he would seem to say that Peter was that Rock yet acknowledgeth that by that Rock the Faith of Peter might be meant and not his Person Nay which is more considerable and may seem strange to the Reader the Fathers of the Trent Council expresly say That the Creed or Profession of Faith which the Church of Rome useth the Constantinopolitan Creed they mean and there set it down is The Firm and Only Foundation against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail and our present Text is in the Margent Cited for it whence it evidently appears that those Fathers at Trent have Declared That the Creed or true Faith of Christ is that firm Rock and The Only Foundation on which the Church is built and against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail and if that Faith be the only Foundation of such firmness then the Pope is not For if there be another then that is not what the Trent Fathers say it is the Only Foundation And lastly it is very considerable what Stapleton their Learned Professor at Doway and great Champion of their Church confesseth and without great Impudence he could not deny it that not only Chrysostome Cyril and Hilary but four Popes Leo Agatho Nicolas and Adrian each of them the first of that name have in their Decretal Epistles declared That the Rock on which the Church was built was not Peter's Person but his Faith or Confession of it This was the Opinion of those ancient Popes and they as infallible sure as any of their Successors By the way that we may observe the Contradiction amongst our Adversaries notwithstanding the pretended Infallibility of their Church The Trent Catechism says That Peter Only was the Rock on which our blessed Saviour built his Church And this the Author or Authors of the Catechism pretends to prove out of Cyprian some others there named So that if the Trent Council say True the Creed or the Confession of the Cathol Faith is the Only Foundation on which the Church is built but if the Trent Catechism be in the Right Peter Only is that Rock and Foundation Now seeing it is impossible that both these Positions should be true it Evidently follows that there is an Error in the Council or Catechism or which I rather believe in both That this may further appear I say 4. That 't is certain and generally Confess'd That a Lively Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel is a Rock and Foundation against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail Our blessed Saviour tells us That he who hears his sayings and doth them he who really and practically believes the Gospel builds upon a Rock And St. John tell us That such Faith is victorious nay victory and cannot be overcome Hence it is that in the Liturgie of St. James in the Administration of the Eucharist they pray That God would bless the Sacred Elements that they might be Effectual to the Establishment of the Holy Catholick Church which he had Founded and Built upon the Rock of Faith But though Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel be a Rock yet 't is not as the Trent Fathers say the Only Rock on which the Church is built Peter was a Rock too this our Adversaries Confess and earnestly Contend for But neither was he the Only Rock though the Trent Catechism and Popish Writers commonly say so nor such a Rock as they without any Reason or Just Ground would have him That this may Appear it is to be Considered 1. That by Evident Scripture our blessed Saviour is the Prime and Chief Fundamental Rock on which the whole Church is built Behold says God by Isay I lay in Sion for a Foundation a Stone a precious Corner Stone a Sure Foundation c. I know that in the Vulgar Latin of Sixtus V. and Clemens 8. it is untruly render'd Lapideâ— pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum Whence Bellarmine will have it meant of Peter and so of the Pope who in his Opinion is Lapis pretiosus in Fundamento fundatus But had the Cardinal consulted the Hebrew Text or the Version of the Septuagint or Hieromes Version of both and his Notes upon them he might have seen his Error But though Bellarmine Expound this Place of Isay to be meant of Peter yet Peter himself who understood that Text as well as the
his Feeding or Ruling them So they and Peter too are Sheep in Respect of our blessed Saviour the great Shepherd of the Sheep but not in respect of Peter they are Shepherds as well as he and never Committed to his Care or Cure that as his Sheep he should feed and govern them And as all the other Apostles in Respect of Peter were Foundations Shepherds of the Church coordinate with and equal to him So all other Bishops the Apostles Successors were Equal to Peter's pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome and no way bound to give any Reason of their Administration to him as to their Superior much less as to a Supream Prince and Monarch of the Christian World as the Canonists Jesuits and the Popish Party do now Erroneously and Impiously miscall him This was Cyprian's Opinion in the Place but now Cited And Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick though he seem to say much for Peter's and the Popes Supremacy yet he Confesseth as upon a serious Consideration of several Passages in Cyprian and the African Councils well he might That Cyprian's Opinion was That all Bishops were equal and were bound to give an Account of their Administration to our blessed Saviour Only and not to any Superior Bishop no not to Peter ' s Successor the Pope Nor is it any way probable that a Person so Excellent and Knowing as Cyprian should think otherwise seeing in his time as is notorious and well known to all who know Antiquity there was no Patriarch or Archbishop Superior by any Law of God or Man to the Ordinary Bishops as may and when there is an Opportunity shall be made Good It is true Cyprian if it be he and not the Interpolator of that Tract says That the Primacy was given to Peter and that the Church of Rome was The Principal Church Now this Primacy and Principality Cyprian speaks of is by me before and now freely granted A Primacy of Order and Precedency not of Jurisdiction or that Monarchical Authority which Anciently was not pretended to by themselves they now contend for And this Primacy which anciently was allowed to the Bishop of Rome was not from our blessed Saviour's gift but the greatness of that Imperial City Non à Petro sed à Patribus as the Canon of Chalcedon tells us And that which makes it more probable that I have given the true Sense of Cyprian is That Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick in his Dissertations and Notes on Cyprian Explains Cyprian's meaning just as I have done reducing the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Church not from any Prerogative given to that Bishop or Church by our blessed Saviour but from the greatness of that Imperial City And then Cites the Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which in Terminis and when Translated in plain English says the very same thing I have done And indeed that Canon made by Six hundred and thirty Fathers Synodically met in a legitimate General Council confirm'd by Imperial Edicts and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae does Authentickly and utterly overthrow that vast Monarchical Supremacy which the Pope and his Party for some Ages last past without any just ground contend for If any of our Adversaries think otherwise as possibly they may I shall make them this fair offer Let them bring me any Canon of any General Council of equal Authority and Antiquity with this of Chalcedon by which they can prove the Popes pretended Supremacy or any one Article of their own new Trent Creed And for the future I shall acquiesce and they shall have my Thanks and Subscription 6. Pius V. in his Bull says further That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Vniversal Church with a plenitude of Power to govern it to one only that is to Peter the Prince of the Apostles And His Successors Here I consider 1. That although it be certain from Scripture and evident Testimonies of pure and primitive Antiquity that Peter never had nor Executed any such Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles and the whole Christian Church as is now vainly pretended to yet 't is as certain that the Pope and his Party cry up and magnifie St. Peter's Power that he as his Heir and Successor may possess the same Power For this they say and without any just proof say it only That it was our blessed Saviour's will that Peter ' s Successor should have The Very same Power Peter had and this because he was Christ's Vicar though every Bishop in the World as shall God willing appear anon be Christ's Vicar as well and as much as he and sat in Peter ' s Chair as his lawful Successor 2. But admit dato non Concesso which is absolutely untrue That Peter had such a Supremacy and Monarchical Power as they Erroneously pretend to yet it might be Personal to himself and for his Life only as his Apostolical power was as to that part of it which was properly Apostolical and not Hereditary to be transferred to any Successor So that the Hinge of the Controversie will be here and our Adversaries concern'd to prove two Things 1. That Peter's Power be what it will was not Personal but Hereditary and to be Transmitted to his Successor 2. And that the Pope and Bishop of Rome was his Legal Successor For if they do not upon just Grounds make both these good good night to their pretended Supremacy For the First That the greatest Power St. Peter and the Apostles had was Extraordinary and Personal not to be Transmitted to any Successor what Power they did transmit I shall anon shew will be Evident in these Particulars 1. Peter and the Apostles had Vocationem à Christo Immediatam Our blessed Saviour call'd them all except Matthias Immediately as is evident from the Text. And sure I am that the Pope cannot pretend to such an Immediate Call 2. The Apostles every one as well as Peter had a Power given them to do Miracles to Cast out Devils and heal all manner of Diseases and Sicknesses Nor can Peter's Successor whoever he be pretend to this 3. The Jurisdiction which was by our blessed Saviour given to every Apostle to James and John and Paul as well as Peter was Universal the whole World was their Diocese Not that every one could possibly be in every place but where ever any of them came they had Authority to Preach Administer the Sacraments Constitute and Govern Churches So Paul did at Antioch and Rome as much and more than Peter though they pretend that Peter alone and not Paul was first Bishop of both those Places That every Apostle as well as Peter had Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over the whole World is in Scripture Evident by the Commission our blessed Saviour gave them Go and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father
only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he gâ—tâ—less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of