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
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
denounc'd against the Assassins as well as those who procur'd or hired them to Assassinate any Christians But the man is miserably mistaken for 't is Evident and Confess'd That the Punishments contain'd in the Constitution are denounced only against those Christians who hire and imploy those Impious Assassins Excommunication and the Consequents of it is the Punishment mention'd in that Constitution which neither did nor possibly could concern those Mahometan Assassins For although the said Author of the Gloss elsewhere tells us That the Pope is more then a pure man and Gods Vice-Roy yet certainly he cannot do Impossibilities and Excommunicate Mahometans and Infidels unless he can turn those out of the Christian Church who never were nor would be in it and deprive them of that Communion which they never had But although Pope Innocent the Fourth in the afore-mention'd Constitution speaks only of the Infidel and Mahometan Assassins and of those Christians who procure or hire them to Murder Princes and has nothing of any other who are not of that Mahometan Society though they undertake and act the same Villanies yet those Great and Learned Canonists and Writers of the Popish Church before-named upon proportion and parity of Reason justly Condemn all Christians who shall undertake and effect or indeavour such Assassinations Of these Christian Assassins Cardinal Cajetan says That though they be not comprehended under the Censures of that Constitution yet they Deserve both a Temporal and Eternal Death And to the same purpose Covarruvias tells us and he says it is the Common Opinion That whosoever he be Christian or Mahometan who for Money given or promised undertakes the Assassination of any Christian in this Case both the Mandans and Mandatarius both he that hires and he who is hired to do such Villany are highly guilty and under the Censures and the Severity of them though he who is hired do not actually effect the Assassination if he really indeavour it Nor is it only these I have named who Damn this Impious Mahometan and Turkish Doctrine of Assassinating Kings and Princes I believe and from good Authority know that many thousands more in the Communion of the Church of Rome do equally abhorr and detest it especially in France where their Divines and Parliaments famous for Learning and their General Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church against the Usurpations and Tyranny of Rome in the year 1594. publickly Condemn'd this Mahometan and Jesuitical Doctrine and declared it to be what indeed it is Heretical Prodigious and Diabolical 4. But all this notwithstanding the Jesuites and others of their Party and Principles did and do approve and practise that Diabolical Doctrine and when they conceive Princes to be Enemies to their Interest or the Catholick Cause as they call it indeavour by Lying Calumnies to disaffect the People and to raise Rebellions against those Princes that so they may cut them off by Publick War and Seditions and when this succeeds not by private Assassinations This is by sad Experience notoriously known to our Western World as may appear by the Premisses and further Testimonies of their own Roman Catholick Historians in this Case of Indubitable Truth and Veracity Thuanus tell us That in those Bloody Wars in France in the Reign of Henry the Third it was some of the Religious and Regulars especially the Jesuites who by an Industrious and I add Impious Diligence did first Alienate the People from their Obedience to their Prince and then sollicited them to Rebellion I know that those words Ac Jesuitarum Patrum Imprimis are not to be found in those Editions of Thuanus we have being left out by the Arts and Frauds of those who corrupt all Authors who have any thing against their Errors or Impieties but we are assured that those words were in the Original Copy of Thuanus his History But when this would not do and they saw the King could not be cut off by a Rebellious War and publickly they perswade and incourage Jaques Clement a Desperate Villain to Assassinate his Prince who August the First 1589. did the Execrable Act and Murder'd his King Thuanus tells us That Friar Clement was incouraged to Commit that Prodigious Parricide by the furious Sermons and Declamations of their New Divines Especially of the Jesuites who publickly taught them That it was lawful nay Meritorious to kill a Tyrant and if he outlived the Fact he should be a Cardinal at Rome and if he died a Saint in Heaven And accordingly when he was dead by a Death he deserved his Party caused his Picture to be cut in Brass adorned their Churches and Chambers with it counted him a Saint and Martyr and as such made their Addresses and Prayers to him Horrid Superstition and Popish blindness not to put a vast difference between a Martyr of Jesus Christ and an Impious Traytor and Murtherer of his King 2. After this in the year 1594. Johan Chastell undertakes and indeavours the Assassination of Henry the Fourth of France struck him in the Mouth but the good Providence of Heaven protecting that Prince did not effect his Impious Design Now if you ask How any who pretends to be a Christian could have a Conscience so seared or a Soul possess'd with so Prodigious an Insensibility as not to tremble at the very thought of Committing such a horrid and inhuman Villany Davila will tell you That he was a Disciple of the Jesuites That he himself freely confessed that he was bred up in the Schools of the Jesuites and had often heard it discours'd and disputed That it was not Only Lawful but Meritorious to Kill Henry of Bourbon a Relapsed Heretick and Persecutor of the Holy Church That Father Gueret a Jesuite was his Confessor c. so that being possess'd with their Impious Principles and Perswasions he undertook that prodigious and damnable Parricide In short it was notoriously known to all France that the Jesuites both approved and designed the Execrable Assassination of their King Whence it was as Davila goes on that the Parliament of Paris pass'd this Sentence That Father Guignard and Gueret Jesuites should be Condemned to the Gallows that the rest of the Jesuites profess'd or not profess'd should be banished out of France as Enemies to the Crown and publick Tranquility their Goods and Revenues Jeiz'd and distributed to pious Vses c. And it had been well for France had they stood banished still and never return'd For about Sixteen years after what Johan Chastell impiously indeavour'd that bloody Villain Raviliac May the Fourteenth 1610. effected and with Monstrous Impiety and a Cursed hand Murder'd his King Henry the Fourth And it was the Jesuites and their Traiterous Principles which moved and incouraged him to Commit that Monstrous Unchristian and Antichristian Parricide For after the Fact was done Raviliac freely and publickly confessed That it was the Jesuite Mariana's
and Seditious Book to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists to joyn with the Spanish Forces against their Queen and Country under the Prince of Parma and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen with that Book and his own Bull into the Low-Countries and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe to be sent into England Were it necessary many things now might be said pertinent to this purpose but I suppose the Instances already given will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Impâ—â—tial Persons That Pope Pius V. was neither the first nor last who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors for above 600. years have owned approved and as they had opportunity put that Power in practise This in General premis'd I come now to consider the Bull of Pius V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth wherein two things occur very considerable 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it For the first the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus The Damnation of Elizabeth c. where though Damnation may seem a very hard word as indeed it is in the sense they use it as shall by and by appear yet it is not unusual but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus The Damnation Deposition of Friderick II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry VIII the Title prefix'd to it is The Damnation of Henry VIII and his Favourers c. So that Pius V. Damning Queen Elizabeth was not singular though Impious he had some of his Predecessors Forms to follow I say his Predecessors for I do not find that any Bishops in the World save those of Rome ever used such Unchristian and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors And it is observable and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant of which there is a vast number that the Popes of later Ages when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power they usually cite the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors who had done the like not for matter of fact barely but to prove a Right that because their Predecessors had done so formerly therefore they who succeeded in the same Power might do it too Now although to Argue thus à Facto ad Jus be evidently inconsequent and irrational no better than this Peter de facto deny'd and forswore his Master Ergo His Successors de jure may do so to Yet if their Principles were true as I suppose they may think them such Arguing would be more concluding For Pope Leo. X. expresly affirms and publickly declares in one of their General Councils that it is more clear than light it self That None of his Predecessors Popes of Rome Did ever Err in any of their Canons or Constitutions Now if this were true as it is evidently false and his Asserting it an Argument not only of his Fallibility but of his great Error and Folly That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd then they might with more Security follow them for certainly it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide Especially if it be true which they tell us For 1. In their Laws and Canons approved by their Supream Authority and retained in publick use in their Church we are told That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them This as Gratian there tells us was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence is Received into the Body of their Canon Law Revised Corrected and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity So Gregory XIII says and confirms it Whence it evidently follows that in Pope Gregory's Judgment This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity And in the same place it is farther declared for Law Pope Stephen I. is cited as Author of that Sentence That Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute it is without all Contradiction perpetually to be Observed 2. Though this be beyond all truth and reason highly erroneous yet the Jesuits of late have gone much higher and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris publickly maintain'd these two Positions 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors the same Infallibility he himself had so oft as they spoke è Cathedra 2. That even out of a General Council He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith both in Questions of Right and Fact This as to the main of it though Erroneous and Impious is maintain'd by others as well as Jesuits F. Gregory de Rives a Capuchin Priest tells us and his Book is approved by the General and several others of his Order and by Father D. Roquet a Dominican and Doctor of Divinity c. That as the Authority of Christ our blessed Saviour if he were now on Earth were greater than all Councils so by the Same Reason the Authority of the Pope who is Christ's Vicar is greater than all Councils too That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope not to Councils and then Concludes That the Church of Rome he means the Pope is Judge of Controversies and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide Thus De Rives And three or four years before him Lud. Bail a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary expresly affirms That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word in Scripture 2. His unwritten Word in the Traditions of the Church 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd and their meaning determin'd by the Pope whether in or out of Councils and this he says is the most approved way in which men acquiesce and think they need look no further And hence he Infers That seeing this is so we ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners but acquiesce in his Judgment and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities to prove the aforesaid Particulars That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors especially if they be Hereticks and think they have as Christ's Vicars a just Prerogative and Power to do it Sure I am that these Positions though Erroneous and Impious are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits Canonists Schoolmen and their Followers which are very many receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best and as they themselves say their most Correct Editions and approved and when they had opportunity practis'd by their Supream Powers their Popes and General Councils I
would not be mistaken I do not say that all who now do or for this Six hundred years last past have liv'd in the Communion of the Church of Rome either do or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris and many in other Countries have publickly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them Especially in Germany in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. c. not only private Persons but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depositions of their Emperors not only Injust and Impious but Antichristian I grant also That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum if some have rightly told the Number has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent yet I shall neither deny nor doubt but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome who dislike this Doctrine But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome so long as her Governing and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it For 1. Father Caron himself tells us that notwithstanding his Book and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings The Divines of Lovane The Pope's Nuncio the Cardinals four or five Popes Paulus V. Pius V. Alexander VII Innocentius X. he might easily have reckon'd many more did condemn his Doctrine The Inquisitors damn'd his Book and his Superiors Excommunicate him 2. It is confessed That the Supream Infallible Power of their Church resides either in the Pope or Council or both together And 't is also certain That their Popes in their approved and in publick use received Canon Law in their Authentick Bulls publish'd by themselves in their General Councils and with their Consent have approved and for this Six hundred years last past many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings nor has the Church of Rome I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it as doubtless she would had she indeed disliked it Quae non prohibet cum possit jubet If any man think otherwise and can really shew me that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake and be thankful to him for a Civility which at present I really believe I shall never receive However Grata supervenient quae non sperantur 3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius V. and his Predecessors in the like Cases calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth The next Query will be What that hard word signifies and what they mean by it in their Bulls For the Solution of which doubt and Satisfaction to the Query 1. I take it to be certain and confess'd That the word Damnum from whence Damnation comes signifies a diminution or loss of some good things had and enjoyed before or of a right to future good things and then Damnation as to our present Case will be a judicial sentence which by way of punishment imposes such loss and diminution 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here as loss of Honours Liberty Lands or Life or of Spiritual and Eternal things as Heaven and Salvation hereafter so the Damnation also according to the Nature of the sentence and the mischief intended by it may be Temporal or Eternal or both if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal 3. I say then and I hope to make it evident that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull and Excommunication so far as the malice and injustice of an Usurped Power could endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen was not only Temporal but also Spiritual and Eternal This the word Damnation in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title of the Bull in their Popish Construction intends and signifies For the Temporal mischiefs intended to be brought upon that Good Queen there is no question they are all particularly named in the Bull it self as we shall see anon For the Spiritual that is a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excommunication is now to be proved And here it is to be Considered 1. That they constantly say and having strong Delusion possibly may believe it That Hereticks and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull dying Excommunicate as that Queen did and all true Protestants do are Eternally Damn'd For 1. A very great Canonist of our own Nation while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here tells us That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil And for farther proof of this he Cites Gratian and their Canon Law and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian who tells us in another Canon That Excommunication is a Damnation to Eternal Death And John Semeca the Glossator gives us their meaning of it That it is certainly true when the Person Excommunicate is incorrigible and contemns the Excommunication as for my part I really do contemn all their Excommunications as Bruta fulmina which neither do nor can hurt any honest Protestant so that by their Injust Law and most uncharitable Divinity not only Queen Elizabeth but all Protestants who are every Year Excommunicated by the Pope in their Bulla Coenae Domini are Eternally damned and that è Cathedra A Sentence Erroneous and Impious and though it be the Popes whom they miscall Infallible inconsistent with Truth or Christian Charity 2. But we have both for Learning and Authority a far greater Author than Lindwood or Gratian and in our days long after them I mean Cardinal Baronius who tells us That Pope Gregory VII did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd And for this he Cites Pope Gregory's own Epistles who surely best knew his own mind and the meaning of his own Decree 3. But we have greater Authors and Authority for this than Baronius for Pope Paschal II. tells us That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council and adds That by the Judgment of the whole Church he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema And after this Pope Paul III. Damns that 's the word and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII and all his Favourers and Adherents And we smite them saith he with the Sword of an Anathema Malediction and Eternal Damnation In the Year 1459. Pius II. with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council at Mantua Excommunicates and Damns all those even Kings and Emperors who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council and that they shall be punish'd as Traytors and
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
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
they could not have been saved And therefore they also are his Sheep 2. Yet they were Shepherds too sent by and subordinate to the great and chief Shepherd Jesus Christ in respect of the Church and Christians over which the Holy Ghost had set them 3. Our blessed Saviour is such a foundation and Founder of his Church as does not find but make these Lively Stones which are the Materials with which he builds it He gives his Spirit and by it Grace and a Lively Faith which things alone make men Lively Stones and fit for that Building This no Apostle not Peter much less any succeeding Pope ever did or could do nor without great folly and impiety can pretend to 4. Our blessed Saviour is such a Rock such a Foundation and Founder of the Church as was and is Proprietary and the sole true Owner of it 't is his House purchased with his precious Blood and he ever had and still hath a Magisterial and Imperial power over it to rule and govern it He is King of Saints 'T is true the Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations and Founders of the Church Those of the Judaical Church before our blessed Saviour's Incarnation these of the Christian Church after it But the Power and the Authority the Prophets or Apostles had even the greatest of them Moses or Peter was only Ministerial the Authority of Servants deriv'd from our blessed Saviour and Exercised under him So the Apostle tells us That Moses was faithful in all his House i. e. in the Judaical Church As A Servant but Christ as a Son over his Own House whose House Are We c. So in the Christian Church the Apostles All of them were Prime and Principal Ministers from and under Christ to call and build the Church They were Servants of Christ and for his sake of the Church they had Ministerium but not Imperium Neither Peter nor any other had that vast Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church which is not without great Error and Impiety pretended to when they blasphemously say That Peter was our blessed Saviours Successor and by him Constituted the Head of the Vniversal Church with the very same Power our blessed Saviour had But this they say only without any Proof or Probability and so transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. But although we say and have evident Reason and Authority for it That our blessed Saviour was the one and only prime and chief foundation and founder of the Church and all the Apostles Peter as well as the Rest Superstructions in respect of him yet we know and acknowledge that both in Scripture and Antiquity they are called Foundations and Founders of the Christian Church in respect of the Churches call'd Converted and Constituted by them but all Equally so Peter was no more a foundation then Paul or James or John For 1. They were all immediately call'd by our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon Peter or any body else as is Evident in the Text it self And this is generally Confess'd by the Popish Commentators even the Jesuits such as Tirinus Menochius c. I say all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship from our blessed Saviour except Matthias and he was not chosen by Peter who neither knew nor had any such Supremacy as without all reason is now ascribed to him but the Colledge of the Apostles and consent of the faithful there present And though a Learned Jesuit zealous for Peter and the Popes Supremacy would have Peter to be the Directior in that business the Election of Matthias yet he cannot deny but it was done by the Common Consent of the Apostles and Brethren 2. As the Apostles all of them Matthias excepted had their call Immediately and Equally from our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon St. Peter so they had their Commission immediately from him and in it the very same Power equally given to all The same power given to any one even St. Peter was given to every one This is Evident 1. From those plain Texts where their Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour before the Resurrection when they were sent to the Jews only and the very same Power equally given to all 2. And from those other as clear and plain Texts wherein after the Resurrection they had Commission and Authority given them by our blessed Saviour to preach to all Nations where it is As my Father sent me so I send you and Go ye c. All equally sent no difference or distinction of the Persons as to any Priviledge or Precedence no Degrees of Power more or greater in one then every one Their Commission and Authority given in it was the very same and equally given to all the Apostles These Truths are so evident in the Text that some sober Popish Writers do both profess and industriously prove them Franc A Victoria prime Professor of Divinity at Salamanca in Spain and as they esteemed and called him an Excellent and Incomparable Divine Proposes and proves these two Conclusions 1. All the Power the Apostles had was by them received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the Apostles had Equal Power with Peter And then he Explains his meaning thus That every Apostle had Ecclesiastical Power in the whole World and to do Every Act which Peter had Power to do But then to please the Pope and his Party he Excepts those Acts which were proper and belong'd peculiarly to the Pope as Calling of a General Council But this is gratis dictum without any pretence of proof or probability from Scripture and evidently contradictory to the known Practise of the Christian World after the Emperors became Christians who alone and not the Pope call'd all the Ancient Councils as is fully proved by a late and Learned Sorbon Doctor 5. But to proceed That Place in Matthew is urged in the foregoing Objection to prove the Monarchical Supremacy of Peter I Give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place I consider 1. That this Text is generally urg'd though most Impertinently to prove Peter's and the Popes Power over Kings and Emperors So Innocent III. Cites it to prove that the Emperor is subject to the Pope To the same purpose Pope Boniface VIII produceth it in his Impious and as to the Nonsense and Inconsequence of it ridiculous Extravagant which Bellarmine approves and Leo. X. and his Lateran Council which they call a General one Innovates and Confirms and yet a late Jesuit expresly tells us and you may be sure with the Approbation of his Superiors That the Keys were given Only to Peter These and many more quote this Place to the
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
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
at an end we would acquiesce and admit what upon undeniable evidence we deny the Popes Supremacy But this they neither do nor is there any possibility they ever should prove For there is not one Syllable in Scripture of Peter's Successor or of what Power he received from him and nothing but Scripture can prove our blessed Saviour's Institution and Divine Law whereby Peter's Supremacy is transmitted to his Successor The truth is that Pius V. in the beginning of this his Impious Bull and other Popes many times in their Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and their Writers generally take it for granted that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Supremacy over the whole Church and to his Successors after him And when some of them sometimes go about to prove it the Reasons they bring are so far from Sense and Consequence that they may deserve Pity and Contempt rather than a serious Answer But when Reason will not Convince they have other Roman Arts to Cosen men into a Belief that what was given to Peter was likewise given to the Pope his Successor and that is amongst other ways by Corrupting the Ancient Fathers with false Translations So when Chrysostom had faid That the Power of the Keys was not given to Peter only but to the rest of the Apostles Pet. Possinus adds Successors and renders it thus The Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter And His Successors c. where Chrysostome whom he Translates has nothing of Peter's Successors but truly and plainly says That the Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter but to the rest of the Apostles when our blessed Savionr told them whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So in the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Bishops of France and of his Legat Paschasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon these Words occur in the Latin Copies The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo Head of the Vniversal Church Where these words Head of the Vniversal Church are not in the Greek Copies as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly Confesseth but by Roman Arts falsly and basely interserted that so they might by fraud what by no Reason they can maintain the Pope's impiously usurped Supremacy And that we may know how unpleasing the publishing of such things though evidently true are to the Pope and his Party at Rome who are resolved in despight of truth to maintain the Popes pretended Supremacy this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholick Archbishop is damn'd by the Inquisitors not to be printed read or had by any He who seriously reads and understands the Latin Versions of the Greek Councils Fathers and other Greek and Latin Writers may find an hundred such Frauds to maintain what they know they have no just reason for their Papal and Antichristian Tyranny And their Jndices Expurgatorij are Authentick Evidences to Convince them of these Unchristian Practises to conceal truth and cosen the World into a belief of their pernicious Papal Errors Nor is this all nor the worst for so desperately are they set upon it that if their Interest and the Papal Monarchy cannot otherwise be maintain'd as 't is impossible it should by any just and lawful means they speak impiously and blasphemously of our blessed Saviour Thomas Campegius Episcopus Feltrensis in his Book of the Power of the Pope to Paul IV. says That our blessed Saviour had not been a Diligent Father of the Family to his Church unless he had left such a Monarch over his Church as the Pope of whom he is there speaking And the Cites Pope Innocent and Aquinas to justifie it Albertus Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose and expresly says That our blessed Saviour had been wanting to his Church in things necessary if he had not Constituted and left such a Monarch and Judge of Controversies And a great Canonist if that be possible more blasphemously says That our blessed Saviour while he was on Earth had power to pronounce the Sentence of Deposition and Damnation against the Emperor or any other And by the same Reason His Vicar now can do it And then he impiously adds That our blessed Saviour would not have seem'd Discreet unless he had left such a Vicar as could do all these things c. So if it be granted which is most evident and certainly true that our blessed Saviour left no such Monarchical Vicar as the Pope then they are not affraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion And this impious Gloss is approved and confirm'd by Pope Gregory XIII as we may be sure what makes for his Extravagant Power and Papal Monarchy how Erroneous and Impious soever shall not want his Approbation And thus much of the third Priviledge of the Apostles their Vniversal Jurisdiction equally in them all in James and John and Paul as much as Peter and this Jurisdiction Personal to all and never transmitted to any of their Successors 4. Besides the Immediate call of the Apostles their Power of doing Miracles and their Universal Jurisdiction over all the World they were all of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely Inspired by the Holy Ghost so that they had Infallibility so far as whatever they preach'd or writ was Divine and the undoubted Word of God This Priviledge also was Personal nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors I know that the Canonists and Jesuits in the last and worst of times would make the World believe without any shadow of rational ground that Peter transferred his Infallibility to the Pope and made him the Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith and Fact too A thing so evidently false and without any possibility of proof that 't is a wonder tha◠any should have the Confidence to assert it especially in Paris the great Metropolis of 〈◊〉 Church which constantly does and has deny◠the Popes Infallibility and Superiority to a General Council 2. But that which might fo◠ever silence this Irrational and Injust Claim 〈◊〉 Infallibility in the Pope is that for Matter o◠Fact none of them though they were some times nibling at a kind of Supremacy for above a Thousand Years after our blessed Saviour either did or dared pretend to Infallibility and if they had they had made themselves ridiculous For 3. It was notoriously known that several of their Popes were Hereticks For instance Liberius Honorius Vigilius c. And for Heresie Condemn'd in General Councils as is evident from the Acts themselves and has been demonstrated not only by Protestants but by very Learned men of the Roman Communion 4. And he who seriously reads and impartially considers their Papal Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and in them how ridiculously they reason and prophane rather than expound Scripture will have abundant
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
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
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
Word of God So a Learned Popish Author tells us That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word the Scriptures 2. His unwritten Word Traditions 3. His explained or declared Word when Scripture or Traditions are declared and explained by the Pope whether in or out of a Council And he says That this Last word of God the Popes Definitions and Explications is the most approved and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it Though this be much yet not all For the Pope does not only pretend to and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy over all the Kingdoms of the World but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them that he can parte inconsultâ give away Kingdoms pro Arbitrio to whom he pleases A Memorable and for Papal Pride and Injustice a Prodigious Instance we have of this in Pope Alexander the Sixth who at one Clap gave to Ferdinand and Elizabeth King and Queen of Castile and their Heirs for ever All the West-Indies from Pole to Pole and all the Isles about them which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd and the Azores with all their Dominions Cities Castles Villages all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them And this he says he gives of his own meer Liberality by Power deriv'd from Peter and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever Kings and Emperors by name who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies given to Ferdinand by him without the leave and licence of the said Ferdinand Here we see the Pope gives away almost half the World from the true Owners Causa incognita inaudita indicta the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him If it be said They were Pagan Idolaters Grant that Yet 1. What they all were he neither did nor could know 2. If they really were such as probably they were yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ a Pagan and Idolater may jure naturae have as just a Temporal Right to his Estate as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time and yet he Commands them to give to Caesar the things which were Caesars Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety and to which he had a right and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute and other things due to him But I hope this will not be deny'd For if none but pious men and true Christians have any just Right to what they possess it will I fear go hard with his Holyness and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony or any other thing he does possess And therefore if he Impartially consider it he may find some reason if not for Truths sake which with him is not always a prevailing Motive yet for his own to be in this of my opinion By the Premisses I hope it may and does appear That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshipped and so really has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast that Man of Sin and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture 4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion many Excellent Persons both for Learning and Piety have said as much and some have given us a Catalogue of their Testimonies I shall say nothing of the Fathers many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation some of them I have Cited before and Schardius in the Place last Quoted has more Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists or the Reformed Churches since Luther who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist especially the Church of England as appears both by her ablest Writers and her Authentick Homilies confirmed by the Kings Supream Authority in Convocations and Parliaments Omitting all these which yet were abundantly sufficient to shew that I am not singular in this Opinion I shall only of very many more give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome And here 1. The Emperor Frederick the Second in a Letter to the King of France complaining of the Prodigious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire and ruin him he says That he Indeavour'd to build the Tower of Babylon against him And that we may know what and whom he meant by Babylon in another Epistle to the King and Nobility of France he Complains of the horrid Injuries and Injustice done him by the Pope and his Party he calls them the Elders of Babylon c. 2. A faithful Historian speaking of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seaventh and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety tells us That in those times Most Men both Privately and Publickly curs'd Hildebrand call'd him Antichrist that under the Name and Title of Christ he did the work of Antichrist that he sat in Babylon in the Temple of God and as if he had been a God Exalted himself above all that is worshipped c. And much more to the same purpose abundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times who were neither Lutherans nor by the Roman Church then reputed Hereticks And afterward speaking of the same Hildebrand we are told That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaventy years before that time when that was said under a colour and shew of Religion He begun the War with the Emperor which his Successors continued to that Day till the time of Friderick the Second and Pope Gregory the Ninth where we have many things more concerning the Prodigious Pride Impiety and Tyranny of the Pope to prove that he was Antichrist The same Historian also tells us That almost All Good Just and Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time the time of Hildebrand he means because they Saw those things then come to pass which were foretold long before 3. But this is not all We have further Testimonies of this Truth 1. Robert Grosthead who both for Learning and Piety was Inferior to none in his Age He on his Death-bed having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice he adds Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist Is not a Destroyer of Souls the Pope he means an Enemy of God and Antichrist And after a long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties he calls Rome Egypt so Saint John calls it Spiritually Sodom and Egypt and concludes that the Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude but by the Sword 2. Nor is this all we have great Councils of whole Nations in their Publick Edicts and Constitutions expresly declaring the Pope to be that Antichrist who Exalts himself above all that is called God We have a Publick Edict
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
any who desired as most do Wealth or Honour here or as all should do the Joys of Heaven hereafter These were the Impious Policies and Bloody Practices of Rome to destroy Queen Elizabeth and her Protestant Subjects and as their fear of the Protestant Religion destructive of their Superstition and Idolatry continued so their hate of it and their desire and indeavours to destroy all the Professors of it For the Queen being dead in the beginning of King James his Reign upon the aforemention'd or the like motives they undertook the Gunpowder Conspiracy such a horrid and hellish Villany as no Turkish or Pagan Story can parallel wherein they indeavour'd and if the Powerful Providence of Heaven had not hinder'd it had Assassinated not not the King only but the whole Kingdom in its Representative And further to omit the bloody and barbarous Assassinations of Henry the Third of France by Jaques Clement and of Henry the Fourth by Raviliac incouraged to those Villanies by Jesuitical and Popish Principles and Promises for Raviliac confess'd That it was the Book of Mariana the Jesuite and the Traiterous Positions maintain'd in it which induced him to that Prodigious Villany the Murder of the King for which Cause that Book Damn'd by the Sentence of the Parliament and Sorbon was publickly burnt in Paris I say to let these and such Instances pass it is too well known and believ'd that in the late horrid and hellish Conspiracy continued and carried on principally by the Jesuits to take away the Life of our Gracious King whom God preserve one of the Assassins had Fifteen thousand pounds pay'd or promised and another Thirty thousand Masses to be said for him if he miscarried to Incourage them to that Monstrous Popish Villany Now their Impiety in this their Ingagement was equal both undertaking the Commission of the same Sin the Murder of their King But their folly seem'd unequal For Fifteen thousand pounds might possibly in this World have been some benefit to him who contracted for it But the 30000. Masses were altogether Insignificant and could be no way beneficial or profitable to him to whom they were promised either in this or the World to come The poor Miscreant was cozen'd by his Party with the noise and number of their Masses For they knew and had he not been a Fool as well as Knave and Villain so might he too that those Masses could never do him any good For even by their own approved and received Principles killing of Hereticks especially an Excommnicated Prince was such a meritorious Work as without any Masses deserved a Plenary Indulgence and pardon of all his Sins and an higher place in Heaven and therefore he could not go to Purgatory had there been any such Place nor could the Devil or the Pope punish him there for such Sins as were absolutely pardon'd and all the Punishment due to them remitted I say they could not justly do it or admit the Devil had he power and permission might be willing to punish an innocent Soul which had no Sin to punish yet sure his Holiness who as Christs Vicar has the Keys of Purgatory as well as Heaven would not do or at least not own for otherwise he does and has done as Impious things the doing of that which is so evidently injust So that if their own Principles be true those Thirty thousand Masses could no way be profitable to that miserable deluded Person in Purgatory whither he was never to come and I suppose they will not say that their Masses here are profitable to the glorify'd Saints and Martyrs in Heaven 12. And here for a more clear and distinct Explication of their Jesuitical and Popish Assassinations it will neither be Impertinent nor Improper to observe further That although since the time of Hildebrand or Gregory the Seaventh the Antichristian Pride or Tyranny of the Pope and his Party has been exceeding great and pernicious to the Western Part of the World they both approving and practising the Excommunications and Depositions of Kings and Emperors Absolutions of their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance with Injunctions against the Law of Nature and Scripture never to Obey them yet I do not find that the Popes or their Party approv'd or practis'd the Assassinations of Princes before Ignatius Loyola and the unhappy Approbation and Confirmation of his Society Ann. 1540. Nay I find it Condemned as Impious Inhuman and Barbarous not only by their Learned men even their Canonists but by their Popes and Councils That this may appear I desire it may be consider'd 1. That Pope Innocent the Fourth about the year 1245. or 1246. makes a Constitution in the General Council at Lions and with the approbation of that Council wherein he calls Assassinations Horrid Inhumanity and Detestable Cruelty and an indeavour to kill Body and Soul and then adds That if any Prince or Prelate any Person Ecclesiastical or Civil shall procure any Assassin to kill any Christian though the Effect do not follow or receive conceal or any way favour such Assassin then such Person is Ipso facto Excommunicate Deposed and Deprived of all his Honour Dignity and Revenue This was the Judgment of Pope Innocent the Fourth about 435. years since and although for Antichristian Pride and Tyranny as in other things so in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick he was as bad as his Predecessors yet neither they nor he were as yet arrived at the height of Impiety to approve Mahometan and Turkish Assassinations of Kings and Emperors 2. About Eight and forty years after the making of his Constitution by Innocent the Fourth Boniface the Eighth as Impious and Tyrannical as his Predecessors was made Pope and approved this Constitution of Innocent against Assassinations and referr'd it into the Body of their Canon Law where it still remains in all Editions of that Law even to this Day and that to give Authority to it with the Approbation and Confirmation of succeeding Popes particularly of Pius the Fourth Pius the Fifth and Gregory the Thirteenth 3. And hence it is that eminent Writers of the Church of Rome except the Jesuites and their Party do even to this Day generally Condemn all such Assassinations as Impious and to the Publick Pernicious This evidently appears to say nothing of the Gloss by Cardinal Turrecremata Cardinal Cajetan Cardinal Tuschus Henry Spondanus Bishop of Pamiez in France Didacus Couvarruvias Bishop of Segobia in Spain c. And here it is further observable 1. That Pope Innocent the Fourth in the aforesaid Decretal Constitution speaks only of those Ancient and properly so call'd Mahometan-Assassins and though he censures their Assassinations as Impious yet he appoints not their Punishment I know that the Author of the Gloss upon that Constitution Joh. Andreas Boniensis was the man tells us That the Punishments express'd there are
fundamente fundatores haec enim duo eodem recidunt Ecclesiae Corn. A Lapide in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. h 1. Tim. 3. 15. 1. Cor. 3. 9. 16. i 1 Pet. 2. 5. k Eph. 4. 11. 12. l Eph. 1. 22. 23. The Church which is his Body m 1 Cor. 3. 9. 10. And I says Paul as a Master-Builder c. n Ye are Gods building and as a skilful Master-Builder I have laid The Foundation 1. Cor. 3. 11 12. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peritum significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius o Fundamentum posui i. e. prima initia fidei Annunciavi Lyranus Annunciavi vitae aeternae fundamentum id est Christum Fab. Stapulensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. vid. Cor. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 2. E. vid. Grotium in 1. Cor. 3. 10. Rom. 15. 20. Hebr. 6. 1. Ita etiam Lyranus Glossa Interlinearia p Act. 9. 31. 1. Cor 14. 3. 5. 12. so St. Paul's Authority was given him for Edification or building the Church 2. Cor. 10. 8. q Ideo enim Apostolorum nomina Fundamentis Ecclesiae Inscripta sunt Rev. 21. 14. ut significetur Ipsos esse Fundamenta Fundatores haec enim duo eodem recidum Ecclesiae Corn. A. Lapide ubi supra in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. r 1. Cor. 15. 10. I laboured More abundantly then They All. And 2. Cor. 11. 23. s Plus reliquis quia illi ut plurimum Judaeis praedicabant quorum facilis Catechizatio cum legem Prophetas admiserunt Paulus Gentibus qui utraÌ„sque negabant Irenaeus Adversus Haereses lib. 4. cap. 41. p. 379. C. Edit Feu-Ardentij t 2. Cor. 11. 23. Vid. Originem contra Celsum Graeco-Lat p. 49. u 2. Cor. 11. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 X 1. Cor. 7. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Y Concil Trident. Sess. 4. In Decreto de Edit Sacrorum Liborum z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constitutio Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli c. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phavorinus verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. in 1. Cor. 7. 17. Oecumenius and Theophylact say to the same purpose on the same place Confer 1. Cor. 16. 1. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius Epist. 117. pag. 158. ibid. p. 109. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paulus autem peculiaritèr Orbi Vniverso Nicol. Methon De Corp. Sang. Christi in magna Bibl. Patrum Tom. 12. p. 519. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vniversi Orbis Terrarum sollicitudinem mecum gero Theodor. in 2. Cor. 11. 28. 1. Our blessed Saviour f Vid. Matth. 21. 40. Rem 9. 33. Rom. 10 11 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 4. Act. 4. 11. 1. Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. Isai. 28. 16. The Septuagint Translate it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Hieronymum in locum 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. ubi Isaiam citat eadem pene verba habet quae apud 70. Interpretes hodiè Extant vide Procopium in Isai. 44. p. 504. Fabr. Stapulensem in Matth. 16. 18. g Christus lapis summus Angularis Omnia sustinens in unam fidem Abrahae Colligens eos qui in Vtroque Testamento apti sunt in aedificationem Dei Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 42. p. 380. Edit Feuardentij h Gen. 3. 15. i Act. 13. 18. 24. Luc. 1. 70. Luc. 24. 27. k Hebr. 9. 15. l Hebr. 11. 13. vid. Eusebium Hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 6. B. Edit Valesij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Omnes ab origine Generis humani qui Justitiae laude floruerunt ut Abraham Moses Quicunque postea Justi Omnes Christum agnoverunt eÃque tanquam Dei Filio debitum Cultum Exhibuerunt Et Demonstrat Evang. lib. 1. Capp 5. 6. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christum distinctè cognitum habuerunt Enseb Hist. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 16. B. n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si non nomine reipsa tamen Christianos Idem plane habet Augustinus Retract lib. 1. cap. 13. o Galat. 3. 8. p Luc. 24. 25. 26. 27. 44. q Act. 26. 22. 23. and Act. 28. 23. r Lombard Sent. I. 3. Dist. 25. vid. Johan Martinez de Ripalda ad dictam Distinctionem s Augustinus in Evang secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Tom. 10. p. 58. D. Basil. 1569. Super hanc Petram quam confessus es dicens Tues Christus Filius Dei vivi aedijicabo Ecclesiam meam Id est Super Meipsum aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Super Me aedificabo Te non Me super Te Non in Pauli nec in Petri Nomine baptizati sumus sed Christi ut Petrus aedificetur super Petram non Petra super Petrum Ibid. pag. 59. A. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Omnium siquidem fundamentum est Christus qui sibi ad mota fixa firmáque sustineat Procopius in Cap. 44. Isaiae p. 504. And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ecclesiae idem fundamentum jesit qui Ipse Fundamentum est super quod nos tanquam Lapides pretiosi superstruimur Procopius ibid. pag. 519. Omnis Ecclesiae Compages innititur Incumâ—it ut nunquam cadat summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesu Augustin Enarrat in Psal. 86. Tom. 8. pag. 955. Operum Basil. 1569. u Fundamentum est solus Christus vel fides Ipsius Object Apoc. 21. 14. Apostoli sunt Fundamenta Sol 1. Fundamentum propriè est illud quod habet firmitatem stabilitatem in se sic Solus Christus est Fundamentum 2. Impropriè illud quod adhaeret primo Fundamento sicut sunt Lapides primarij Fundamento inhaerentes sic Apostoli dicuntur fundamenta qui Primitùs Adhaeserunt Christo. Lyranus in 1. Cor. 3. 11. vid. Per. Lombard in locum pag. 73. C. D. Christus primus Lapis Angularis super Christum Apostoli Prophetae super illos Nos aedificati sumus Maldonatus in Matth. 16 pag. 342. And again Multi in eodem Fundamento Lapides sunt summus primus solus est Christus praeter illud Fundamentum Aliud nemo potest ponere super illud autem etiam alia sunt quae eo nituntur Fundamenta nam Apostoli Prophetae Fundamentum Appellantur sed ipso summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesu Eph. 2. 20. Maldonat in Matth. 7. 24. p. 178. x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 13. 20. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 5. 4. z John 10. 27. a John 10. 15. b Act. 20. 28. c Rev. 15. 3. d Hebr. 3. 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut famulus Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super domum ut Filius Dominus e 2. Cor. 4. 5. f Christus Petrum Vniversi fidelium Generis Caput Constituit ut qui Ei Successit Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem
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