Apostles a Primacy of Order Calling Graces Gifts Courage c. or that he was a Ministerial Rock But since the Rock and the Keys signifie the same thing to wit the power of Binding and Loosing which Matth. 18.18 is expresly promised to all the Apostles and the same words of Binding and Loosing are there used which were before to S. Peter and after the Resurrection John 20.21 the same power was amply bestowed on all the Apostles equally and their Successors He breathed on his Disciples saying As my Father sent me even so send I you Receive you the Holy Ghost Whose sins you retain they are retained and whose sins you remit they are remitted so that no mans Jurisdiction came from Peter to him but every one had it alike and equally from our Saviour who sent him and since S. Paul assures us Ephes 2.20 That we are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles in general and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner-stone and S. Anselm well comments on S. Matth. 16. This power was not given alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter he gave this Power to all This Text will not evince S. Peter to have been Constituted the Universal Monarch of Christs Church Nor in the whole Series of Divine History do we meet with any Monarch-like Action of his Recorded But on the contrary we read that He was sent as a Messenger by the rest of the Apostles Act. 8.14 That he gave the Right Hand to S. Paul and Barnabas Galat. 2.9 That he was accused to the other Disciples pleaded his cause before them and submitted to their Judgment Acts. 11.1 c. And that S. Paul withstood him to his face finding that he walk'd not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Galat. 2.11 14. Thus far they think this Soveraignty was only promised In S. Joh. 21.17 where Christ said to Peter Feed my sheep they teach that this power was absolutely delivered and confirmed But neither was this charge so lay'd on S. Peter that the rest were excluded For they grant that no more was here Given than what was Promised Matth. 16. where the Keys are mentioned Now we have evidently proved that all the Apostles were equal in the power of the Keys and that those words concern S. Peter no more than the other Disciples In Scripture phrase the word Feed when it is accommodated to Ecclesiastical Functions is the same as to Teach They shall Feed them with knowledge and understanding saies the Prophet Jeremy And then we shall find the same Command and Commission given to all the Apostles Matth. 28.19 Go and Teach all Nations c. Besides since All the Apostles had before been sent as Shepherds to Feed the Flock Matth. 9.36 10.6 and were afterwards furnished with more full Instructions and Abilities to the same end Matth. 28. John 20. which they executed most diligently and Couragiously as appears by their Acts and Epistles no man can reasonably deny but that pasce Oves Feed my sheep belong'd to them as well as to S. Peter and they themselves gave the same Duty in Charge to other Pastors Act. 20.28 Take heed to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood Neither would S. Peter ingross this privilege to himself but communicated it to others 1 Pet. 5.2 Feed the Flock of God that is among you S. Cyprian de Vnit Eccles speaks home They are all Pastors but the Flock is one which by one consent is fed by all the Apostles And S. Chrysostom l. 2. de Sacerdotio Our Saviour at that time intended to teach both Peter and Vs how dear his Church is to him c. This is a True Short and Plain Account of S. Peter's Authority both what was given him by our Saviour and what was exercised by himself But alas this is too scant for his pretended Successour as we shall now manifest And I shall be a little more exact in this Seasonable Argument because that I know many of our English Roman Catholicks will not believe that this Vast Unlimited Power is owned by their Church but is onely the product of the Flattery of private Doctors and the Pope's particular Parasites I will onely mention how the Usurpings Innovations and Incroachments of the Roman Bishops have been constantly opposed by the Greatest part of Christendom in all Ages In the first General Council of Nice he was confined to his own particular District as the Patriarch of Alexandria and others were to theirs In the first General Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus the Provinces of the World were distinguished and the Patriarchs restrained to their own Circuits and He of Constantinople is by name made Equal to Him of Rome in all Ecclesiastical Matters He of Rome had indeed the Chief Honour but that consisted not in Jurisdiction but in sitting in the first place and such like Titles The Council of Chalcedon confirms the same Decrees and adds withal Our Fathers gave the Privileges to the Seat of Elder Rome because that City had the Empire and the 150 Bishops assembled at the Council of Constantinople moved with the same reason gave the same Privilege to the most Sacred Throne of New Rome thinking it reasonable that the City which is honoured with the Empire and Senate should also have Equal Privileges with Elder Rome and in Ecclesiastical Matters be advanced alike with her Another Council at Constantinople Enacted the same But the Council of Carthage Anno 418. consisting of 217 Bishops is most Worthy of our Remark In this Council when Sozymus Bishop of Rome claimed a Right to receive Appeals from all parts of the World and pretended a Canon of the Nicene Council that should give it him the Bishops strongly debated the Matter and having searched the Original Copies of the Nicene Council whereby the Untruth of his Claim was discovered they wrote sharply to him not to meddle any more with their Provinces nor admit into his Fellowship such as they had Excommunicated Telling him he had nothing to do in their Causes either to bring them to Rome or to send Legats to hear them at home and that this pretence of his was expresly against the Nicene Council The Evidence of this Great Testimony stands to this day unanswerable by the Roman Party It is abundantly known how Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and Victor by the Bishops of the East But this is an Innnite Theme and I must not forget my promised Brevity I shall onely Request the Gentlemen of the Roman-Catholick Persuasion seriously to lay to heart what Trivial Grounds this Grand Article of their Church the Pope's Supremacy even in Ecclesiastical Affairs is founded upon and to consider how many Difficulties must be cleared to make it a probable Tale. 1. That S. Peter was Bishop of Rome 2. That he dyed
Difficulty even at our first setting out namely Whether S. Peter whence all this Power and Soveraignty is pretended were himself Bishop of Rome or were indeed ever at Rome I will not Deny either because I know many of the Antients plead for both But the Point being onely grounded on Humane Authority for Divine Authority seems rather to contradict it i. e. Ecclesiastical History and the Differences among the Reporters being so Many and so Considerable both in Chronology and divers other Weighty Circumstances and the Probabilities that are produced against it being not altogether Contemptible I hope a Man may be excused from being a Damn'd Hererick if he do not believe it to be a Fundamental Article of Faith The Article of the Standing or Falling Church sayes a Modern Famous Controvertist and consequently hath a Meaner Esteem for all that prodigious Train of Positions which are thence deduced These following Inducements make it at least Doubtful whether S. Peter ever was Bishop of Rome or was ever there For his ever having been at Rome we do not much stand upon it But the Reasons and Testimonies brought out of Humane Histories which onely mention it are so uncertain and involv'd with such difficulties as may make any Man deservedly question it Vellenus hath published several Demonstrations that he was never there And those Authorities of the Fathers that are alleged for it are so Various that the Learned'st Romanists cannot reconcile them Marsilius Patavinus in his Defens Pacis part 2. c. 16. sayes By Scripture it cannot be made out either that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was ever there at all and when he considers the Ecclesiastical Historians that affirm it he doth it so that it is evident he doth not believe them It is true S. Peter in his 1. Ep. c. 5.13 writes as from Babylon but that Babylon was in Assyria For though in the Apocalyptical Visions Rome is designed by Babylon yet in a plain Epistolary Salutation there was no reason at all for such a Trope Nor doth S. Paul or S. Luke who make frequent mention of Rom ever call it Babylon There is indeed an Old Chair at Rome pretended to be S. Peter's and on certain daies it is shewn to the people as likewise a Sepulchre and certain parts of his Body as Relicks But the Jugling and Imposture with Reliques and such like Trumpery is so well known that the World hath long since lessen'd her Credit to such Monuments Nor hath it been the lowest part of Rome's Policy for many Ages with Feigned Miracles Counterfeit Relicks and Forged Records and Legends to raise in the Vulgar an Opinion of her Holiness and so maintain her Grandeur But we have been too long on this Impertinency Whether He was ever Bishop of Rome deserves our stricter Examination Holy Writ seems not silent here as in the former Case but fully Opposite S. Peter and S. Paul by the Instinct of the Holy Ghost made an Accord that S. Peter should Preach to the Jews and S. Paul to the Gentiles Whereupon in the Sacred Text S. Peter's peculiar Title is The Apostle of the Circumcision and Consequent to his Charge we see that he wrote his Epistles to the scatter'd Jews neither did he direct any to or date any from Rome So that it is incredible he should be Bishop or Resident there for 25 years Whereas S. Paul was the Great Doctor and Apostle of the Gentiles and both writ to the Romans and taught and was imprisoned at Rome for several Years as is evident from Scripture Again the Authours of this Story the first whereof were probably Papias and Dionysius the one too Credulous and Erroneous the other a Counterfeit are wholly at a loss in declaring when S. Peter came to Rome how long he sat there when he dyed and who were his Successours And the most tolerable Account that is given by the best Writers How S. Peter the 5th Year after Christ's Passion went to Antioch and there fix'd his Episcopal See for 7 years thence removed to Rome and there continued 25 Years is no waies coherent with what is related of S. Peter Galat 1. 2. Act. 12. 15. From which places it is manifest that S Peter's most usual Abode was at Jerusalem at least till the 18th year after Christ's death and the 17th of S. Paul's Conversion Nor is it likely that S. Peter setled his Chair at Antioch so long since Galat. 2. we read only of his passing by there and that he was so far from behaving himself as their Bishop that he seems to have understood little of the Affairs of that Church till S. Paul had rightly informed him In the 16. to the Romans St. Paul salutes very many by name yet takes not the least notice of S. Peter nor gives them the least account where he was or how he did which seems something odd if S. Peter had then been their Soveraign Pastor And when S. Paul was himself at Rome and writ diverse Epistles in the Reign of Nero at which time Bellarmin would have S. Peter to have been at Rome though he make mention of many others of inferior rank yet not one syllable of S. Peter Nay he generally denies that there was any such present with him Colos 4.11 And 2 Tim. 4.16 he grievously complains that at his first Answer when he appeared before Nero All men forsook him And when S. Paul came first to Rome the Jews there who were S. Peter's peculiar charge seemed to know nothing of the Gospel Act. 28. Thus S. Peter must be Bishop of Rome 25 years and yet never be at Rome when ever the Scripture mentions the Roman Church And S. Paul could never find him there though he is reported to be Martyred there at the same time with him We see then upon how tottering a Foundation this mighty Fabrick depends I mean how justly Questionable the Papal Monarchy is even in matter of Fact and to its very An sit But perhaps it may plead better for it self in point of Right and Equity We will briefly here inquire into two things 1. What Authority S. Peter had 2. What Authority the Pope pretends to derive from him and how justly That our Lord and Saviour never intended such an Absolute Arbitrary Soveraign Monarchical Government in his Church as the Pope at this day exercises both over Clergy and Layity is as evident in the Gospel as any Truth there contained Matth. 20.25 You know saith Christ that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them c. But it shall not be so among you Whesoever will be great among you let him be your servant And the Apostle Eph. 4.11 reckoning up the whole Sacred Oeconomy Ministry and Government of the Church le ts not fall one word concerning a Visiole Monarch He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pasters and Teachers for the Perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the Body of Christ And
at Rome by the special Command of Christ 3. That he dyed Invested with such a Supremacy as is now Exercised in that Church 4. That his so dying there is sufficient without a new Revelation from God to make the Succession of the Bishop of Rome of Divine Authority We shall now take a View of that Grand Machine of the Pope's power over Temporal Princes and make it most evident that it is an Article and Doctrin of the Roman Church and being so that this alone were a sufficient Motive to forsake her Communion since She Teaches Justifies and strictly Commands even under the penalty of being accounted no Christians Treason and Rebellion The present Lord Bishop of Lincoln hath written a Learned and Satisfactory Treatise on this Subject and I find his Lordship very faithful in his Citations Wherefore I may be the more sparing However because I heartily desire that Honoured Pious and Loyal Persons may not unwarily ingage their Liberties Estates and Lives for the Maintainance of so Extravagant and Tyrannical a Power which hath in all Ages caused so many dismal Tragedies in the Christian World and is in it self Fatal and Destructive to all Civil Government I shall briefly treat of this Matter to undeceive others especially since I was herein miserably seduced my self till I had Maturely and Exactly Examined the whole Business I shall begin with General Councils whose Decrees if they will not admit I confess I as yet understand not what the Doctrin of the Roman Church is nor do I know where to find it The Third Council of Lateran c. 27. after it had Condemned and Excommunicated many Hereticks and you must know that All Protestants are both accounted so and as such are once every year solemnly accursed by His Holyness in Person on Maundy Thursday It Absolves All that had sworn Fidelity or Homage to them from those Oaths and we know who they are to whom Fidelity and Homage strictly speaking is due and they are required in Order to the Remission of their Sins to fight against them And those who dye doing Penance in that manner may undoubtedly expect Indulgence for their Sins with Eternal Rewards Then by the Authority of S. Peter and Paul the Council remits to all who shall rise and fight against them two years penance Here a General Council uses all its Industry to poyson people with Rebellious Doctrin and calls Treason Doing of Penance Not long after Pope Celestin Predecessor to Innocent the Third with more than Luciferian Arrogance sets the Crown on the Head of the Emperour Henry the 6th with his two feet and then kicks it off again And the fact is produced by no meaner a Person than Cardinal Baronius to shew that it is in the Pope's power to Give and Take away Empires But to as much purpose as He produced that Text Rise Peter Kill and Eat to incense Paul the 5th against the Venetians The second Evidence shall be the Fourth Great and as they call it Most General Council of Lateran wherein were assembled 1200 of one sort or other These C. 3. make a Decree That the Aid of Secular Princes should be required for the Rooting out of Hereticks i. e All that are not of the Roman Communion and that when the Temporal Lord required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Territory from Heretical Wickedness He shall be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans And if he persist in neglecting to give satisfaction for the space of a year let him be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may pronounce his Subjects discharged from their Obedience and expose his Territory to be seized on by Catholicks who having exterminated the Hereticks shall possess it without Contradiction and preserve it in the Purity of the Faith So as no Injury be done to the Right of the Supreme Lord where there is such provided He do not any ways oppose himself And the Law is to take place in them who have no Superiour Lord. Which Last Clause perfectly comprehends Soveraign Princes and so anticipates that Reply which some make That the Decree was only made for Feudatory and Subordinate Princes And whereas some few deny it to be a General Council and that it made any Canons it is a most Impudent Cavil For both the Council and Canons have been and are Universally received by the Roman Church the Council as General and Approved so by Innocent the III. and the Canons as Authentick All their Writers concerning Councils put this down among the General ones and commonly call it the Great General Council of Lateran and Joverius says he cannot see with what face a Man dare deny it They always put it among those Councils that are Approved by the Church for you must know that some are Reprobated some are partly Approbated and partly Reprobated Their Canon Law so esteems of it The Council of Constance puts it among those General Councils to the Observation whereof the Popes were to swear at their Installment The Council of Trent which I hope none will boggle at Sess 24. C. 5. in express terms calls it a General Council and Confirms one of its Canons To which I may add because it concerns us a Synod at Oxford where this Council was received for England And though some Princes that were deposed out of the Pope's meer Spite and Malice got some Advocates to write for them and Synods of Bishops to Protest against the Pope's Proceedings yet in the case of Pretended Heresie which neerly touches Protestant Princes not one Writer or Bishop appears in Vindication of the Temporal Power A shrewd Sign that this Deposing Heretical Magistrates is in General the Romish Doctrine The General Council of Lions is next It was summoned by Innocent the 4th against the Emperour Frederick the 2d Here the Pope having consulted with the Council Declares the Emperour deprived by God of his Dominions and thereupon they Actually Depose him and Absolve All from their Oaths of Fidelity to him strictly charging All persons to acknowledge him no more for Emperour and denouncing All that did otherwise Excommunicated Ipso facto So we have another whole General Council concurring with the Pope in asserting this Deposing Power and with Candles burning in their hands thundering out Sentence against the poor Emperour In the Council of Constance Sess 19. we often meet with this Clause That All Breakers of their Privileges whether Emperours Kings or any other Degree were thereby Ipso facto subjected to the Banns Punishments and Censures in the Council of Lateran and Sess 17. in the Pass they gave to the King of Arragon they decree That whatsoever Person either King Cardinal c. hinder him in his Journey he is Ipso facto deprived of all Honour Dignity Office or Benefice whether Ecclesiastical or Secular It is true with much Importunity and Danger Gerson procured a Decree in this Council that No Subject should Murder his Prince But that
when he recommends Unity by reason of one Body one Spirit one Hope one Faith one Baptism one Lord there is no mention at all of any Pontifical Monarch In all the New Testament there is not any one called the Head of the Church but only our Blessed Saviour Eph. 1.22 God hath put all things under his feet and given him to be Head over all things to his Church And chap. 4. 15. Grow up to him in all things who is the Head even Christ Colos 1.18 He is the Head of the Body the Church Wherefore they are highly injurious to our Saviour who set up any other Nor do Protestant Princes take themselves to be Heads of their own particular Churches in any other sence than the good Kings of Israel and Juda were to defend the Orthodox Religion and maintain good Order and Discipline in the Church and take cognizance of abuses crept in among any persons Ecclesiastical or Civil and reform what they find amiss according to the Canon of the Scripture by the advice of their Chief Clergy And not as the Papists impertinently object concerning Q. Elizabeth that she had assumed power to preach administer the Sacraments c. And all this as I said before is the undoubted Right of Soveraigh Princes in their own Territories and was practised by the Good Princes under the Old Law with great Commendation and Reward It was likewise promised to the New That Kings should be Nursing Father's and Queens Nursing Mothers to the Church In fine that Paternal Wisdom and Providence of God which so plentifully revealed to us All matters of importance for our own private Good for the Being or Well being of his Church and certainly this great pretended Jurisdiction must be of that Nature that the most Curious Inquirer can desire nothing more and which did under the Mosaical Dispensation so exactly describe the Condition and Power of the High Priest even to the minute Circumstances of his Garments so that none could be so stupid among the Jews but if he read the Books of Mises he might sufficiently understand that there was a High Priest constituted and what Authority he had would certainly have left us some intimation of the like Regiment under the Gospel had there been any such matter to be expected Whereas on the contrary we cannot there find so much as the Name or Title of any such Dignity nor of any Seat appointed for his Residence no singular Office is assigned to him above others no Ensigns of Soveraignty are recorded whereby He might be distinguished from others no manner of Succession is provided for nor is there the least practice or exercise of such a singular Absolute Power so much as hinted at in the whole New Testament And therefore we may justly conclude it to be an upstart Usurpation and no Authority of Divine Institution There are but two passages in Scripture that with any tollerable shew can be made use of to countenance this Supremacy that is so much urged to be conferred on S. Peter and intayled on his Successors The one wherein it seems to be promised the other wherein they say it was actually bestowed The first is that famous place the Achilles of the Roman Cause Matth. 16.17 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven These words which they think so plain and obvious do yet contain two Metaphors of a Rock and the Keys and I cannot find in any other part of Scripture that they are explained in the Romanists sence Simply and without a Metaphor I am sure they were not so easie to the Apostles themselves nor did they understand thereby any principality intended for S. Peter as appears by sundry contentions among them after these words were spoken who should be the Chiefest Nor can the Antient Fathers Good men discover any such Energy or Prerogative in them for S. Peter or the Pope For our Saviour doth not plainly and literally affirm that he will build his Church upon S. Peter but upon the Rock which he confess'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon this Rock not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon this Peter Non dictum est illi Tu es Petra sed Tu es Petrus Petra autem erat Christus It was not said to him Thou art the Rock but Thou art Peter for the Rock was Christ says S. Augustin Retract l. c. 21. The same Father in his 124 Tract on S. Joh. Ser. 13. de Ver. Dom. thus paraphrases this Text Vpon this Rock which thou hast confessed upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledg'd saying Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church that is upon my self the Son of the Living God will I build my Church I will build Thee upon Me not Me upon Thee For the Rock was Christ whereon Peter himself was built I am punctual in citing this Great Doctor and Father of the Church because the Romanists give out that they desire to stand to the alone Judgment of this Learned Father The Holy Martyr S. Cyprian could not apprehend any such Intrigue in these words l. de Vnit Eccles The rest of the Apostles saith he were the same that Peter was being endowed with an equal share both of Honour and Power Nor S. Ambrose Serm. 66. S. Peter and Paul were eminent among the Apostles and it is doubtful which is to he preferred before the other S. Hillary l. 6. de Trin. S. Chrysost hom 55. in Matth. Euseb Emissen Greg. the Great V. Beda Haymo the Gloss of Gratian Lyra and a multitude of others understand the Text of S. Matthew as S. Augustin doth Cardinal Cusanus l. 2. c. 13. Concord Cath. is very positive that nothing was here said to S. Peter but what was said to the rest of the Apostles And the words of Sixtus Senensis a very Learned Pontifician Biblioth l. 6. are worth our notice We believe and acknowledge with a sure faith that Christ is the first and Chief Foundation of the Whole Ecclesiastical Edifice But we also affirm that upon this Foundation there are other Rocks lay'd namely Peter and the rest of the Apostles whom John in the Apocalypse names the Twelve Foundations of the Heavenly Jerusalem In sum I find three Interpretations of these words among the Antients viz. That Christ is the Rock That the Confession Faith and Doctrine of Christ is the Rock and that S. Peter himself as an Apostle is Metonymically a partial Rock All which meanings agree very well together but nothing favour the Supremacy that the Romanists desire Nor do the Protestants deny S. Peter a Primacy of Authority and Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Church as an Apostle or in respect of his Fellow