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
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
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
enough tells us That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All And Irenaeus gives the Reason of it His Sufferings were more He planted more Churches He writ more Epistles then they all his being Fourteen and all the rest but Seven and they in respect of his short ones too which then were and ever since have been and while the World stands will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy and for St. Paul's Preference before him at least his Independence upon Peter as the Supream Monarch of the Church is That he tells the Corinthians That the care of All The Churches lay upon him Nor that only but that he made Orders and Constitutions for All those Churches which they were bound to observe So I Ordain saith he in All the Churches So our English truly renders it I know the Vulgar Latin which the Trent Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick renders it otherwise So I teach in all Churches but the word there signifies not to teach but properly to Ordain and Legally Constitute Define and Command So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text and therefore he says That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches was giving them a Law which they were to obey So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture and that by himself who best knew and was Testis idoneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Witness beyond all Exception 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All whereas in Scripture no such thing is said of Peter or any other Apostle Upon consideration of the Premises some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul A Preacher to the whole World So Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places as of James at Jerusalem John in Asia Peter and Paul at Antioch c. He adds concerning Paul That he did particularly Officiate to the whole World And to the same purpose Theodoret Expounding the words of the Apostle That the care of All the Churches lay upon him He says That the sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul More than this cannot be said of Peter nor is there half so much said of him as of St. Paul in Scripture Had Peter told us That the care of All the Churches lay upon him and that He made Orders and Constitutions to be observed In All Churches both which are expresly said of St. Paul the Canonists and Popish Party would have had some pretence who now have none for Peter's Supremacy I urge not this to Ascribe to Paul that Supremacy we deny to Peter For neither had they nor any other Apostle any such thing but only to shew That St. Paul his Laboâ—s Sufferings the many Churches founded by him and His Canonical Writings consider'd may be thought not without reason a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church then St. Peter 2. But as it is and must be confess'd by Divines Ancient and Modern Protestants and Papists That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation and that Petra on which the Church is Built So there is also a Personal Foundation evidently mention'd in Scripture I mean Persons on whom the Christian Church is built And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour 2. His Apostles 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built is evident from the Scriptures before Cited Such a Rock as Peter neither was nor could be much less any of those they call his Successors For 1. Our blessed Saviour was and still is a Rock on which as Irenaeus tells us the Vniversal Church both before and since his coming into the World was built He was promised by God presently after the fall of Adam and then successfully by all the Prophets His Death and Passion was a Propitiation as well for the Sins of those who lived before as ours who live after it and those Promises of the Messiah were such as all the Patriarchs Prophets and Pious men before Christ did know and believe Nay if we believe Eusebius the Promises of the Messias were clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets though in a less degree and measure of clearness and their Belief and suitable Obedience such that though they had not the name yet they might truly be call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and so it was to all the Ancient Church by the Prophets who foretold them of the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd and yet he says that He preached No other Things then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come And this is a truth so manifest that to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers Peter Lombard and the Popish School-men writing De fide Antiquorum of the Faith by which the Saints before our blessed Saviour were saved they all say that they then as we now were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer The difference was 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo we in Christo Actu Exhibito 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming was more Imperfect and Implicit Ours since he is come and the Gospel clearly publish'd much more Perfect and Explicite This I say to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock on which the Church under the Old Testament was built and in this Particular such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was nor could be it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation on which the whole Christian Church is built even the Apostles themselves as well as others who all of them Peterâ— as well as Paul in respect of Christ who is the great Immoveable Rock which sustains the whole Building are Superstructions though otherwise in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching they are call'd Foundations yet only Secundary Foundations all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ So in the like Instance all the Apostles Peter as well as the rest were both Sheep and Shepherds 1. Sheep in respect of Christ who is the great and chief Shepherd My Sheep hear my voice says our blessed Saviour The Apostles did so when he call'd them they heard and obey'd him Again I lay down my life for my Sheep so he did for his Apostles else
they could not have been saved And therefore they also are his Sheep 2. Yet they were Shepherds too sent by and subordinate to the great and chief Shepherd Jesus Christ in respect of the Church and Christians over which the Holy Ghost had set them 3. Our blessed Saviour is such a foundation and Founder of his Church as does not find but make these Lively Stones which are the Materials with which he builds it He gives his Spirit and by it Grace and a Lively Faith which things alone make men Lively Stones and fit for that Building This no Apostle not Peter much less any succeeding Pope ever did or could do nor without great folly and impiety can pretend to 4. Our blessed Saviour is such a Rock such a Foundation and Founder of the Church as was and is Proprietary and the sole true Owner of it 't is his House purchased with his precious Blood and he ever had and still hath a Magisterial and Imperial power over it to rule and govern it He is King of Saints 'T is true the Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations and Founders of the Church Those of the Judaical Church before our blessed Saviour's Incarnation these of the Christian Church after it But the Power and the Authority the Prophets or Apostles had even the greatest of them Moses or Peter was only Ministerial the Authority of Servants deriv'd from our blessed Saviour and Exercised under him So the Apostle tells us That Moses was faithful in all his House i. e. in the Judaical Church As A Servant but Christ as a Son over his Own House whose House Are We c. So in the Christian Church the Apostles All of them were Prime and Principal Ministers from and under Christ to call and build the Church They were Servants of Christ and for his sake of the Church they had Ministerium but not Imperium Neither Peter nor any other had that vast Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church which is not without great Error and Impiety pretended to when they blasphemously say That Peter was our blessed Saviours Successor and by him Constituted the Head of the Vniversal Church with the very same Power our blessed Saviour had But this they say only without any Proof or Probability and so transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. But although we say and have evident Reason and Authority for it That our blessed Saviour was the one and only prime and chief foundation and founder of the Church and all the Apostles Peter as well as the Rest Superstructions in respect of him yet we know and acknowledge that both in Scripture and Antiquity they are called Foundations and Founders of the Christian Church in respect of the Churches call'd Converted and Constituted by them but all Equally so Peter was no more a foundation then Paul or James or John For 1. They were all immediately call'd by our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon Peter or any body else as is Evident in the Text it self And this is generally Confess'd by the Popish Commentators even the Jesuits such as Tirinus Menochius c. I say all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship from our blessed Saviour except Matthias and he was not chosen by Peter who neither knew nor had any such Supremacy as without all reason is now ascribed to him but the Colledge of the Apostles and consent of the faithful there present And though a Learned Jesuit zealous for Peter and the Popes Supremacy would have Peter to be the Directior in that business the Election of Matthias yet he cannot deny but it was done by the Common Consent of the Apostles and Brethren 2. As the Apostles all of them Matthias excepted had their call Immediately and Equally from our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon St. Peter so they had their Commission immediately from him and in it the very same Power equally given to all The same power given to any one even St. Peter was given to every one This is Evident 1. From those plain Texts where their Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour before the Resurrection when they were sent to the Jews only and the very same Power equally given to all 2. And from those other as clear and plain Texts wherein after the Resurrection they had Commission and Authority given them by our blessed Saviour to preach to all Nations where it is As my Father sent me so I send you and Go ye c. All equally sent no difference or distinction of the Persons as to any Priviledge or Precedence no Degrees of Power more or greater in one then every one Their Commission and Authority given in it was the very same and equally given to all the Apostles These Truths are so evident in the Text that some sober Popish Writers do both profess and industriously prove them Franc A Victoria prime Professor of Divinity at Salamanca in Spain and as they esteemed and called him an Excellent and Incomparable Divine Proposes and proves these two Conclusions 1. All the Power the Apostles had was by them received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the Apostles had Equal Power with Peter And then he Explains his meaning thus That every Apostle had Ecclesiastical Power in the whole World and to do Every Act which Peter had Power to do But then to please the Pope and his Party he Excepts those Acts which were proper and belong'd peculiarly to the Pope as Calling of a General Council But this is gratis dictum without any pretence of proof or probability from Scripture and evidently contradictory to the known Practise of the Christian World after the Emperors became Christians who alone and not the Pope call'd all the Ancient Councils as is fully proved by a late and Learned Sorbon Doctor 5. But to proceed That Place in Matthew is urged in the foregoing Objection to prove the Monarchical Supremacy of Peter I Give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place I consider 1. That this Text is generally urg'd though most Impertinently to prove Peter's and the Popes Power over Kings and Emperors So Innocent III. Cites it to prove that the Emperor is subject to the Pope To the same purpose Pope Boniface VIII produceth it in his Impious and as to the Nonsense and Inconsequence of it ridiculous Extravagant which Bellarmine approves and Leo. X. and his Lateran Council which they call a General one Innovates and Confirms and yet a late Jesuit expresly tells us and you may be sure with the Approbation of his Superiors That the Keys were given Only to Peter These and many more quote this Place to the
blessed Saviour did to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he Feed the Flock He thinks it their duty as well as his to feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep And that which further and ad hominem more strongly confirms what I have said in this Particular is That our Adversaries grant though in Contradiction to the Sense many of them â—ive of those words Feed my Sheep when they â—ould build the Popes Supremacy upon them â—hat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both as it signifies to rule and feed and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviours Sheep is so far from being Peculiar to Peter or proving his Supremacy that it is the Duty not only of Peter but of every Bishop in the Christian World both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep This the Trent Catechism expresly affirms That all Bishops as well as Peter are Pastores Pastors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour and to prove this they Cite the Two very places which I a little before produced to the same purpose whence it manifestly appears That even in our Adversaries Judgment when the Popes Supremacy is a little out of their Head the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep is not Peter ' s Supream Prerogative but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World 3. But this though enough is not all we have greater and with them Infallible and therefore undeniable Authority to confirm what I have said and Confute our Adversaries as to their proof of Peter's or the Pope's Supremacy from those words Feed my Sheep For their Trent Council which if the Pope say true was Divinely Inspired and therefore Infallible and if he do not say true he himself was not only fallible but actually false expresly tells us That not only every Bishop but every one who had Cure of Souls was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel to rule and feed his Sheep by offering Sacrifices for them by preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments by good Example by a Paternal Care of the Poor and All Other Pastoral Offices And this is there proved by Texts quoted in the Margent which with some others are the very same with those I have a little before cited out of the Acts of the Apostles and St. Peters Epistle Nor those only but this very place of St. John on which they would build Peter's Supremacy is Cited in the Margent as containing a Precept obliging not Peter only but All who had Cure of souls to feed Christ's sheep Now if those words Feed my sheep contain Praeceptum a Precept Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty then they do not contain what they pretend Donum a Donation of Supremacy 4. But Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Innocent III. in their before mention'd Constitutions tell us that by Oves meas our blessed Saviour means All his sheep All Christians in the World Because he does not speak singularitèr of these or those but Generalitèr of his sheep Whence they and many after them conclude Thaâ— our blessed Saviour Committed all his Sheep Universally to Peter's Care so that even the Apostles being his Sheep were committed to Peter's Care and by Consequence he became their Pastor and Superior Certainly they who reason at this rate and so irrationally may possibly be fit Pastors to feed Sheep and Oxen and such other brutish Cattle but surely not to feed Men and Christians For 1. Feed my sheep as all know unless they bâ— such as those two Popes were is an Indefinite Proposition and then any Novice or youngâ— Sophister in the University could have truly told them That Propositio indefinita in materiâ— Contingenti as this evidently is aequivalet particulari When we say men are young or wise or learned we mean not all but some are such So he who says Christ's sheep are to be fed by Peter must mean some of them are to be fed by him pro loco tempore as he had place and time to meet with them It being impossible he should feed them all There were many thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep whom Peter never did nor could see nor they hear him And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tye him to Impossibilities 2. When they say which is evidently untrue that by those words Feed my sheep all the Faithful are meant and are Committed to Peter's care and charge and therefore the Apostles themselves being our Saviour's Sheep as well as others are part of his Charge and under his Jurisdiction This they say indeed usually but miserably mistaken only say it For they neither have nor can have any Just Ground or Reason for it For it is certain 1. That our blessed Saviour is to his whole Church the only High Priest the Prince of all the Pastors and the Grand Shepherd of the sheep and as King has Imperial Power to Rule and Govern them 2. It is certain the Apostles from and under him are Pastores and Shepherds as well as Peter to feed the Flock But their Power is Ministerial not Imperial Even the Apostleship it self is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ministery and they Ministers of Christ and his Church Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd they are Sheep even Peter himself yet on Earth they are Shepherds only not Sheep neither in respect of the Church over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds nor in relation one to another Paul or James or John are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter to be fed and ruled by him then he to be fed and ruled by them And therefore to say as our Adversaries vainly do that in those words Feed my sheep Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles as his Charge who were Shepherds only and Sheep to no Superior Pastor except our blessed Saviour And by their Apostolical Commission Equal to himself is irrational without any ground in Scripture or purer Antiquity There is another Metaphor concerning the Apostles and their Feeding and Building the Church which may illustrate this business All the Apostles as well and as much as Peter are in Scripture call'd Foundations 〈◊〉 the Church converted fed and confirm'd by them In respect of Christ our blessed Saviour who is the only prime and principal firmâ— Rock on which the Church is built they are all of them Superstructions but in respect of the Christian Church Foundations and that without any dependence upon Peter he is not the Foundation on which they are built but but both he and they immediately upon the Prime Rock and Foundation Jesus Christ So that as the Apostles are Superstructures in the House of God the Church in Respect of Christ the Prime firm Foundation and none of them Superstructures in respect of Peter being neither built upon him nor made Superstructions by him by
his Feeding or Ruling them So they and Peter too are Sheep in Respect of our blessed Saviour the great Shepherd of the Sheep but not in respect of Peter they are Shepherds as well as he and never Committed to his Care or Cure that as his Sheep he should feed and govern them And as all the other Apostles in Respect of Peter were Foundations Shepherds of the Church coordinate with and equal to him So all other Bishops the Apostles Successors were Equal to Peter's pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome and no way bound to give any Reason of their Administration to him as to their Superior much less as to a Supream Prince and Monarch of the Christian World as the Canonists Jesuits and the Popish Party do now Erroneously and Impiously miscall him This was Cyprian's Opinion in the Place but now Cited And Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick though he seem to say much for Peter's and the Popes Supremacy yet he Confesseth as upon a serious Consideration of several Passages in Cyprian and the African Councils well he might That Cyprian's Opinion was That all Bishops were equal and were bound to give an Account of their Administration to our blessed Saviour Only and not to any Superior Bishop no not to Peter ' s Successor the Pope Nor is it any way probable that a Person so Excellent and Knowing as Cyprian should think otherwise seeing in his time as is notorious and well known to all who know Antiquity there was no Patriarch or Archbishop Superior by any Law of God or Man to the Ordinary Bishops as may and when there is an Opportunity shall be made Good It is true Cyprian if it be he and not the Interpolator of that Tract says That the Primacy was given to Peter and that the Church of Rome was The Principal Church Now this Primacy and Principality Cyprian speaks of is by me before and now freely granted A Primacy of Order and Precedency not of Jurisdiction or that Monarchical Authority which Anciently was not pretended to by themselves they now contend for And this Primacy which anciently was allowed to the Bishop of Rome was not from our blessed Saviour's gift but the greatness of that Imperial City Non à Petro sed à Patribus as the Canon of Chalcedon tells us And that which makes it more probable that I have given the true Sense of Cyprian is That Rigaltius a Learned Roman Catholick in his Dissertations and Notes on Cyprian Explains Cyprian's meaning just as I have done reducing the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Church not from any Prerogative given to that Bishop or Church by our blessed Saviour but from the greatness of that Imperial City And then Cites the Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon which in Terminis and when Translated in plain English says the very same thing I have done And indeed that Canon made by Six hundred and thirty Fathers Synodically met in a legitimate General Council confirm'd by Imperial Edicts and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae does Authentickly and utterly overthrow that vast Monarchical Supremacy which the Pope and his Party for some Ages last past without any just ground contend for If any of our Adversaries think otherwise as possibly they may I shall make them this fair offer Let them bring me any Canon of any General Council of equal Authority and Antiquity with this of Chalcedon by which they can prove the Popes pretended Supremacy or any one Article of their own new Trent Creed And for the future I shall acquiesce and they shall have my Thanks and Subscription 6. Pius V. in his Bull says further That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Vniversal Church with a plenitude of Power to govern it to one only that is to Peter the Prince of the Apostles And His Successors Here I consider 1. That although it be certain from Scripture and evident Testimonies of pure and primitive Antiquity that Peter never had nor Executed any such Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles and the whole Christian Church as is now vainly pretended to yet 't is as certain that the Pope and his Party cry up and magnifie St. Peter's Power that he as his Heir and Successor may possess the same Power For this they say and without any just proof say it only That it was our blessed Saviour's will that Peter ' s Successor should have The Very same Power Peter had and this because he was Christ's Vicar though every Bishop in the World as shall God willing appear anon be Christ's Vicar as well and as much as he and sat in Peter ' s Chair as his lawful Successor 2. But admit dato non Concesso which is absolutely untrue That Peter had such a Supremacy and Monarchical Power as they Erroneously pretend to yet it might be Personal to himself and for his Life only as his Apostolical power was as to that part of it which was properly Apostolical and not Hereditary to be transferred to any Successor So that the Hinge of the Controversie will be here and our Adversaries concern'd to prove two Things 1. That Peter's Power be what it will was not Personal but Hereditary and to be Transmitted to his Successor 2. And that the Pope and Bishop of Rome was his Legal Successor For if they do not upon just Grounds make both these good good night to their pretended Supremacy For the First That the greatest Power St. Peter and the Apostles had was Extraordinary and Personal not to be Transmitted to any Successor what Power they did transmit I shall anon shew will be Evident in these Particulars 1. Peter and the Apostles had Vocationem à Christo Immediatam Our blessed Saviour call'd them all except Matthias Immediately as is evident from the Text. And sure I am that the Pope cannot pretend to such an Immediate Call 2. The Apostles every one as well as Peter had a Power given them to do Miracles to Cast out Devils and heal all manner of Diseases and Sicknesses Nor can Peter's Successor whoever he be pretend to this 3. The Jurisdiction which was by our blessed Saviour given to every Apostle to James and John and Paul as well as Peter was Universal the whole World was their Diocese Not that every one could possibly be in every place but where ever any of them came they had Authority to Preach Administer the Sacraments Constitute and Govern Churches So Paul did at Antioch and Rome as much and more than Peter though they pretend that Peter alone and not Paul was first Bishop of both those Places That every Apostle as well as Peter had Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over the whole World is in Scripture Evident by the Commission our blessed Saviour gave them Go and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father
only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he gâ—tâ—less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of
Rome Observe 1. That Eusebius says indeed that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and then by our blessed Saviour's Command as they say went to Rome But so far is he from saying that he was seven years Bishop there that he expresly says That Euodius was the First Bishop of Antioch 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome and refers us to what Eusebius says ad Ann. 2. Claudij The man who understood no Greek is miserably mistaken as Universally he is when he meddles with Greek Authors unless their Translations be true for Eusebius in his Greek Text as all know and may see has no such thing as Five and twenty years nay he does not so much as say that he was Bishop of Rome at all much less that he was Five and twenty years Bishop there But the Latin Copies Interpolated and Corrupted as thousands others are by Roman Arts deceived him But to let this pass Baronius says That Peter was Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Five and twenty of Rome So that in the whole he was Two and thirty years Bishop in Syria and Italy and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was Anno Christi 34. to which if 32. be added the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome the product will be 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a Gentile-Church and his Martyrdom was 13. Neronis that is Anno Christi 68. or as Baronius Computes 69. whence by this their Account it evidently follows that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom about two years only excepted Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a Gentile-Church Which is 1. Manifestly untrue and inconsistent with what is said of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with his Commission in which the care of the Circumcision was concredited to him by our blessed Saviour and with his Solemn Agreement with the Apostles to go to the Circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles And 2. It is without any the least ground in Scripture by which it neither does nor can appear that ever Peter was at Rome so much as for one Day much less that he was Bishop there Five and twenty years Nor can it appear in Scripture that ever he was at Antioch save once nor is there any mention of any thing he then did there save that he dissembled and was justly reprehended for it by St. Paul whereas it is evident in Scripture that St. Paul was at Antioch for a whole year at one time constituted the Church there confirmed them afterwards in the Faith and ordain'd Elders to govern them staid there a long time and continued there preaching the Gospel and yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe them Peter was Bishop there and not Paul The truth is though it be Evident that Paul as Apostle did all Episcopal Acts there yet 't is certain that neither he nor Peter was particularly Bishop of that or any other place 3. It is utterly incredible that Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church as they pretend should for Two and thirty years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that while the Apostles liv'd and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one Syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in those two and thirty years no nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who liv'd long in Antioch and longer in Rome and had opportunity nay had it been true a necessity to mention it He had need of a strong Faith who can believe this for my part Credat Judaeus Apella c. 4. And as for Peter's being Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Twenty five of Rome it is further Considerable That the greatest Patrons of this Popish Position although they agree in the Conclusion that Peter was so long Bishop at those two places yet they Contradict each other and the Truth and by their own Positions to save their Adversaries that Labour utterly Overthrow and Confute that Position they indeavour to prove This Evidently appears in this Case as it is stated by Onuphrius Baronius and Bellarmine 1. Onuphrius tells us That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea for Nine years next after our blessed Saviour's death that is till the year of Christ. 43. after this he was Bishop of Antioch Seven years to the year of our blessed Saviour 50. And then Five and twenty years heâ— sat Bishop of Rome that is by his own Computation till the year of Christ 75. So that by this Account Peter was Bishop of Rome Anno Christi 75. And yet he there says That Peter died Anno Christi 69. And then by his Calculation Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death 2. Baronius states the Question thus Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi 39. and was Bishop there Seven years that is till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says that from Antioch Peter went to Rome and sate there Bishop Five and twenty years that is till the year 71. And so by his own account Peter must be Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead For the same Baronius tells us that Peter died Anno Christi 69. And though this Account of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome be not only Erroneous but to all Intelligent Persons Ridiculous yet Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius but to Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius c. whose Opinions Baronius endeavours to confute In short as there is no ground in Scripture that Peter ever was at Rome so that he was Twenty five years Bishop there neither Scripture nor purer Antiquity affords them any proof or probability Eusebius his Greek Chronicon basely corrupted in a Latin Version of it about Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour being that they must rely upon 5. Our Adversaries had ill luck when they made Peter first Bishop of Rome attributed the Supremacy to him and that he might have it made the Pope his Successor For had they chosen Paul in stead of Peter they might have had far more though not enough to prove and that out of express Scripture both Paul's Supremacy and the Popes Succession to him For these following Particulars every one of them may evidently be proved out of Scripture 1. That the Romans were Gentiles 2. That Paul by our blessed Saviour's Appointment was the Apostle of the Gentiles Peter was not but of the Jews 3. Paul
was two whole years at Rome Converted and Established a Church there but it cannot appear by Scripture that Peter was ever there 4. The Care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good government of All the Churches without any Authority Leave or Commission from Peter no such thing ever said of Peter either in Scripture or primitive and pure Antiquity 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans Peter did no such thing Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expresly told us 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed and Commission'd Peter to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and such were the Romans 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome Converting and Establishing a Church there 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans to Confirm them in that Faith he had preach'd amongst them I say had all these things been in Scripture expresly said of Peter our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would and with far more reason and probability might have asserted Peter's Supremacy and his Roman Episcopacy and that the Pope was and is his Successor But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter and every one of them expresly said of Paul it is Evident that there is far more reason and probability and that grounded upon express Scripture that Paul was Bishop of Rome and not Peter and so the Pope might be his Successor And yet our Adversaries reject Paul and will have Peter their first Bishop though some of them impiously say our blessed Saviour was their first Bishop That St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome notwithstanding all the former things said of him in Scripture we believe and know and willingly grant But on the other side to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture either in express terms as they are of Paul or by Equivalence or any just Consequence this we say is very irrational For in things Moral or Historical and of such we are now speaking which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration the highest Prudential Motives and Probabilities will and ought to carry the Assent of all wise men and therefore seeing it is deny'd and justly too that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome though the Probabilities grounded on Scripture that he was so be far greater then Peter can pretend to for our Adversaries to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome must be and is evidently irrational If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so But when they would magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy having no better Arguments they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome and his See and of some Priviledges which they take or mistake rather to be peculiar to the Popes such as these 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories and Canons is called Apostolicus 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. I confess that these and many such Particulars have been urged and as pertinent stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls their Decretal Constitutions and Epistles and generally by all their Party especially the Clergy Secular and Regular whose great and principal Interest it is to maintain the Papal Supremacy for if that fail they irrecoverably fall with it In some Centuries past while gross Ignorance and Tyranny benighted and overaw'd this Western Part of the World such Arguments did their Business For few could and the danger being very great few or none durst Answer them But after Luther arose and Learning reviv'd all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know that all the Arguments they did or could bring from such Topicks were not only Inconsequent but indeed impertinent and ridiculous That this may not be gratis dictum I shall indeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances and I hope Effect it that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges do or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy and Papal Monarchy they now so earnestly contend for And here 1. It is to be observed that the word Apostolicus which for some Ages last past the Pope has Assumed and his Flatterers given him as peculiar to himself was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops So Alcuinus Flaccus tells us That when a Bishop was Elected they sent him ad Apostolicum that he might Consecrate him The Learned Archbishop of Paris tells me this and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century in the time of Gregorius Turonensis who was made Bishop about the Year 572. but afterwards That Title was appropriated to the Pope Now I desire to know of our Adversaries how The Title being Appropriated to the Pope does make more for his Supremacy then it did for the Archbishops when it was common to them all 2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica we grant Because we are sure St. Paul though not as Bishop sate there But that Peter ever was there neither we nor our Adversaries are or can be sure But it is and by our Adversaries must be granted too That Jerusalem Antioch and other Churches besides Rome were Sedes Apostolicae and Ecclesiae Apostolicae and eo Nomine were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church But the Bishops of none of them then did or could pretend to any Supremacy much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy And why Rome should more then they when our Adversaries can and will give which as yet they never did any Just and Cogent Reason I shall submit Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches such as Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi Rome c. and tells us That Cathedrae Apostolorum the Chairs of the Apostoles were then in those Apostolical Churches That Bishops presided in them that if they had great Curiosity and Care of their Salvation they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Churches He sends them not all to Rome and Peter's Chair there But saith he if thou art near Macedonia thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to If in Asia Ephesus If in Achaia Corinth If thou art near Italy thou hast Rome to Address to He knew no Supremacy or Infallibility annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome more then to Paul's at Corinth or Philippi He directs them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them
and Judged that sufficient without going to Rome The Bishop of Rome in those days pretended to no more Supremacy or Infallibility in the Apostolical Church and Chair at Rome then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities If Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy then either all such Churches must be Supream which is impossible or none at all which is certainly true 3. But they say The Bishop of Rome is Peter ' s Successor and on this they principally and generally ground his Supremacy as derived to him Jure â—â—â—cessions and Jure Divino too by Divine Right and Succession Now if this be true if Succession to Peter carry Supremacy with it Then seeing they constantly say 1. That Peter was seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome 2. And that Euodius was his Successor there I desire to know why the Supremacy did not descend to Euodius his first and immediate Successor For admit that Peter had such Supremacy and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to some Successor both which are manifestly untrue yet seeing such Transmission of his Supremacy must be done either 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour Or 2. By some Act of Peter transmitting his Supremacy to his Successor at Rome and not to Euodius at Antioch it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour or Peter For if they can we will submit and give the Cause but if they cannot then seeing idem est non esse non apparere they must pardon our unbelief if we assent not to that which they cannot prove I say cannot prove there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years I might give more either expresly affirming or from which it may by good Consequence be deduced that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome more then to the Bishop of Antioch If any man think otherwise let him give us good proof of the contrary and we will give him thanks and the Cause 2. But admit that the Pope succeeds Peter and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri as his Successor which is evidently untrue yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Saviour before Peter was Bishop any where and by his own Appointment sat in our blessed Saviour's Place and Episcopal Chair as his Successor I say if this appear then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter so his Successor will be greater then the Pope and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor then the Pope can possibly have as Peter's Now for this let our Adversaries consider what Epiphanius says Thus James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop when our blessed Savioâ—r concredited and resign'd to him before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth And heâ— let it be consider'd 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is call'd a Bishop Vniversâ— Bishop of the whole Church with Monarchiâ—cal and Kingly Power 2. He was in a particulaâ— and peculiar way Bishop of the Jews he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them He was sent in Person only to them He Constituted a Church amongâ— them Ordain'd Apostles and Seventy otheâ— Inferior Ministers whom he sent to Preacâ— and do Miracles in Confirmation of their Doctrine he constantly preached the Gospel amongst them and did all those Acts a Bishop should do in his Diocese 3. And Jerusalem being the Metropolis of the Jews Epiphanius tells us that it was on Earth his Throne Thronus suus his Episcopal Seat or Chair where he usually was preach'd and did Miracles 4. He says That our blessed Saviour chose James before all the Rest even before Peter and concredited and resigned to him Thronum suum his Episcopal Seat and that James was Bishop of Jerusalem is attested by all Antiquity And this probably was the Reason 1. Why Paul names James as Bishop of Jerusalem before Peter 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles James and not Peter gave the definitive Sentence So that these things seem to me certain 1. That our blessed Saviour though Bishop of the Universal Church yet he had a Particular Episcopal Cure and Charge of the Jews As his Father was King of all the World yet Particularly of the Jews 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure 3. And if Epiphanius say true our blessed Saviour himself appointed him his Successor Let our Adversaries by so good Authority shew that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor either at Rome as some of them before mention'd only pretend or any where else and for my part let them take the Cause Otherwise if they cannot then we may evidently conclude That if James never did nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church though our blessed Saviour's Successor much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter Q. E. D. 4. But the Pope they say is Christ's Vicar and that he is or should be so we grant But we further say that many thousands besides him are Christ's Vicars as well and as much as he This has been manifestly proved before I shall only add that the Trent Fathers who far they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and so surely Infallible expresly say and Synodically define That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left all Priests his own Vicars to whom as to Presidents and Judges all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd And Aquinas and their Schoolmen say That in the Church the Bishop is Christ's Vicar and they prove it well from the express and plain words of the Apostle and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden a Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Annotations upon those Texts says the same thing And now if to be Christ's Vicar give any ground or pretence to Supremacy then all Bishops and Priests who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absolving and Retaining Sins every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope as he him So that any Argument drawn from this Title that he is Christ's Vicar to prove the Popes Supremacy is not only Inconsequent but Impertinent and indeed Ridiculous And yet upon this ground and another as Insignificant Pope Innocent the Fourth in their General Council at Lions Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick Seeing says the Pope there we are Christ's Vicar on Earth and it was in the Person of Peter said to us Whatsoever thou binds on Earth
Whether the Pope be Antichrist many have with great success already done it I shall only in short give the Reader two or three Arguments or Motives which at present induce me to believe that the Pope is Antichrist And those Motives either grounded on Scripture the Confessions of our Adversaries the Testimonies of many and great men before or the concurrent Consent of the Reformed Churches since Luther Here consider 1. That it is not only Confess'd by our Adversaries in their Commentaries on 1. Pet. 5. 13. The Church of Babylon salutes you but indeavour'd to be proved by many Arguments they bring That Rome is that Babylon St. John speaks of in the Revelation which he calls the Great Whore Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth and in more plain Terms The Great City which reigns over the Kings of the Earth which cannot possibly be meant of any but Rome that being then the only great City which Reigned over the Kings of the Earth I know that some of them would have Pagan Rome meant but this evidently untrue for 1. It must be Apostatical Rome as indeed it is for the Apostle expresly tells us That Antichrist will not come till an Apostasie and falling from the Faith come first which cannot be meant of Pagan Rome it being impossible they should fall from the Faith who never had any 2. It is meant of that Babylon or Rome which St. John calls the Great Whore and Harlot but in Scripture none but Apostates from the Faith and true Religion are call'd so none but she who was once a Wife and afterwards falls into Spiritual Whoredom which of Pagan Rome neither is nor can be true 3. The Actings of Antichrist are call'd Mysterium a Mystery things hard to be understood but that Pagan Idolaters should persecute and oppress Christians and be drunk with the Blood of the Saints this is no Mystery But that all this should be done in pretence of the only True and Catholick Religion in Honour of Christ and by his Vicar this is indeed a Mystery not easily understood So that it is evident and confess'd that Rome is Babylon Mystical Babylon call'd so as she is call'd Sodom and Egypt in respect of that Analogy and Similitude between the Literal and Mystical the Pagan and Antichristian Babylon Babylon Chaldaeae Italiae Some of the Particulars wherein that Similitude consists are here in the Margent and he who considers what St. John says of the Mystical and what Isaie and Jeremy of the Literal Babylon may find more I take it then for a manifest Truth and confess'd by our Adversaries that by Babylon in the Revelation Rome is meant and that it is the Seat of Antichrist The next Query will be Who that great Antichrist is whose Seat is to be at Rome And this will best appear by the Description and Characters of him in Scripture 2. One Characteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist is given by St. Paul That he is an Enemy an Adversary to Christ our blessed Saviour so the word in St. Paul properly signifies so their Authentick Vulgar Latin translates it and their Learned Commentators prove it So that we are agreed on this That Antichrist whoever he be is an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and though he may pretend as we know he does to be Christ's Vicar and Act by his Authority and for him yet he is really his Adversary and acts in Opposition and Contradiction to him Now if this be a true Character of Antichrist and it is St. Pauls then the Pope has a fairer Plea to be that Beast then any man in the World For under the Name and Notion of Christ's Vicar and by a vainly pretended and usurped Power from him he acts contrary to Christ and the express Commands of the Gospel I shall of many give two or three Instances 1. Our blessed Saviour at the Institution of the Eucharist expresly Commands his Disciples and so all Christians who are of Age and rightly qualify'd Drink Ye All of this And another Evangelist tells us that they obey'd and Did All Drink But the Pope in Contradiction to this absolutely forbids all save the Priest who Consecrates to drink the Eucharistical Cup and so in Contradiction to our Saviour's Command deprives them of half that Sacrament And this they do with a blasphemous Impiety forbidding bidding all Laicks to have the Communion in both kinds Notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and notwithstanding that in the Primitive Church it was Received in both kinds and they further declare them Hereticks who think otherwise and Command that no Priest shall administer it in both kinds to any Lay-man under pain of Excommunication By the way it is observable That it is Confess'd by our Adversaries Lindanus Cardinal Bona c. that the whole Church of God Lay and Clergy for about One thousand two hundred years Received in both kinds even the Church of Rome her self And after that in Aquinas his time it was but in some Churches that the Cup was deny'd to the Laity The sum is this He who acts in Opposition and Contradiction to our blessed Saviour's Commands in the Gospel abrogates them so much as in him lies calls them Hereticks and Excommunicates those who obey them and Incourages those who disobey Christ and obey him he I say is an Adversary to Christ and Antichrist But by the Premisses it appears that the Pope does all this more signally in taking away the Cup in the Eucharist then any who pretends to be a Christian in the whole World Ergo he is Antichrist 2. The next Instance whereby it may appear that the Pope is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and so has one Character of Antichrist is this St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians tells them and he says they are the Commandments of Christ he writes 1. That it is the Commandment of our blessed Saviour that in their Assemblies all things be done to Edification 2. That speaking in an unknown Tongue does not Edify or Profit the Church to which he speaks because they understand not what he says 3. He absolutely forbids all speaking in their Assemblies if there be none to Interpret in any unknown Tongue Now whether the Pope be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary to Christ let the Reader Judge by that which follows Our blessed Saviour expresly Commands that in the Assemblies of Christians all things should be in a Tongue understood by the People for their Edification and the Apostle thinks it madness to do otherwise that they might know his Precepts and gracious Promises and so their Duty and Incouragements to do it But the Pope as all know in Contradiction to this absolutely forbids what our blessed Saviour expresly Commands and prohibits all Publick Prayers
or probability I have indeavoured to prove before sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. As to the second point What is Heresie and who is the Heretick who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications I say in short 1. That it is agreed amongst their Casuists and Canonists That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe joyned with pertinacy or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith and he who so holds such an Opinion is an Heretick 2. And he is pertinacious they say who holds such an Opinion which he does or might and ought to know to be against Scripture or the Church By the way I desire to be inform'd how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned to know with any certainty or assurance what Truths are approved or Errors damn'd in Scripture when they are prohibited under pain of Excommunication ever to read or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand Nor are Bibles only in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue are equally prohibited So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error what Doctrines are Evangelical what Heretical 3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie yet 't is not really by them meant For by their receiv'd Principles a man may hold a hundred Errors which he Does or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith and yet be no Heretick For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us Many Rusticks or Country Clowns having Errors against the Articles of Faith are excused from Heresie because they are Ignorant of those Articles and are ready to Obey The Church And a little before If any man err in those things he is bound to know yet so as it is without pertinacy because he Knows it not to be against The Church and is ready to believe as the Church believes he is no Heretick So that by their Principles let a man believe as many things as he will contrary to Scripture yet if he have the Colliers faith and implicitly believe as the Church believes all is well he is by them esteemed no Heretick 4. And hence it is that they have of late left the word Scripture out of their definition of Heresie and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture but who receive not or contradict what is believed to be de fide by the Pope and his Party And therefore they plainly tell us That None can be an Heretick who believes that Article of our Creed The Holy Catholick Church you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church not only without but against all reason For so their Trent-Catechism tells us not only in the Text but least we should not take notice of it in the Margent too where they say Verus 9. Articuli Professor that is he who will believe what their Church believes Nequit dici Haereticus That is he who believes the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church in the Creed and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost he shall not we may be sure be call'd an Heretick at Rome Nay so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis That to believe as the Church believes excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie that they expresly say That such men may in some Cases not only Lawfully but Meritoriously believe an Error contrary to Scripture which in another more knowing Person would be a real and formal Heresie The Case is this as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it If a Rustick or Ignorant Person concerning Articles of Faith do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion he does Merit by believing although it be an Heretical Error because he is Bound to believe till it appear to him to be against The Church So that in the mean time he is no Heretick For 1. He may lawfully do it 2 He is Bound to do it to believe his Bishop and the Doctrines proposed by him 3. Nay it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors though it be contrary to Scripture and the word of our gracious God This is strange Doctrine yet publickly maintain'd by their Casuists and Schoolmen and approved by their Church For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius nor in any publick declaration disown'd by their Church quae non prohibet peccare aut errare cum possit Jubet And here in relation to the Premisses I shall further propose two things and leave them to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine that an Implicite Faith in their Church and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes is enough to free a Papist from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise through Ignorance he hold some heretical Errors contrary to what his Church believes why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it as it comes to his knowledge free him from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise in the mean time he may believe some things contrary to Scripture Certainly if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party for they are the Roman Church with a resolution to believe them all when they come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it much more will an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles in Scripture with a Resolution to believe them all when they really come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine and in such a measure and degree Infallible as the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party without great Error and Impudence cannot pretend to 2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine as may appear by the Premisses that if any Bishop preach to his People the Laity and Unlearned Rusticks some Heretical Doctrine they are bound to believe it and may not only Lawfully but Meritoriously do so till it appear that their Church is against it Hence it evidently follows That if the Bishop preach'd this Doctrine That 't is lawful to kill an Heretical King who is actually Anathematiz'd and Deposed by the Pope they were bound to believe it and might lawfully and meritoriously do so and then if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine then to put it in Execution and actually kill such a King could not be unlawful and vitious So that we need not wonder that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious
affigi ac publicari possint per se vel alium seu alios publice vel occultè directè vel indirectè impediverint easdem Censuras et Paenas Ipso facto Incurrere Et cum fraus et dolus nemini debeant Patrocinari ne quisquam ex his qui alicui Regimini et Administrationi deputati sunt Infra Tempus sui Regiminis seu Administrationis Praedictas Sententias Censuras et Poenas sustineat quasi pâ—st dictum Tempus Sententiis Censuris et Poenis praedictis amplius Ligatus non existat quemcúnque qui dum in Regimine et Administratione existens monitioni et mandato nostris quoad praemissa vel aliquid eorum obtemperare noluerit etiam deposito Regimine et Administratione hujusmodi nisi paruerit eisdem Censuris et Poenis subjicere decernimus Sect. 20. Et ne Henricus Ejusque Complices et Fautores Adhaerentes Consultores et Sequaces aliÃque quos praemissa Concernunt Ignorantiam eorundem Praesentium Literarum et in eis Contentorum praetendere valeant Literas ipsas in quibus Omnes et singulos tam juris quam facti etiam solemnitatum et Processuum Citationúmque Omissarum defectus etiamsi Tales sint de quibus Specialis et expressa mentio facienda esset propter Notorietatem facti Auctoritate Scientia et Potestatis plenitudine similibus supplemus in Basilicae Principis Apostolorum et Cancellariae Apostolicae de urbe et in partibus in Collegiatae Beatae Mariae Brugen Tornacen et Parochialis de Dunkercae Oppidorum Moriensis Dioecesis Ecclesiarum valvis Affigi et Publicari Mandamus decernentes quod earundem Literarum Publicatio sic facta Henricum Regem Ejúsque Complices Fautores Adhaerentes Consultores et Sequaces Omnesque alios et singulos quos Literae Ipsae quomodolibet Concernunt perinde eos arctent ac si Literae Ipsae eis Personalitèr Lectae et Intimatae fuissent cum non sit verisimile quod ea quae tam patentèr fiunt debeant apud eos incognita remanere Sect. 21. Ceterum quia difficile foret Praesentes Literas ad singula quaeque Loca ad quae necessarium esset deferri volumus et dictâ Auctoritate decernimus quod earum transumptis manu publici Notarij Confectis vel in Almâ Vrbe Impressis ac Sigillo alicujus Personae in Dignitate Ecclesiastica Constitutae munitis ubÃque eadem fides adhibeatur quae Originalibus adhiberetur si essent exhibitae vel ostensae Sect. 22. Nulli ergo Omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae Monitionis Aggravationes Reaggravationis Declarationis Percussionis Suppositionis Inhabilitationis Absolutionis Liberationis Requisitionis Inhibitionis Hortationis Exceptionis Prohibitionis Concessionis Extensionis Suppletionis Mandatorum Voluntatis et Decretorum Infringere vel ei ausu Temerario contraire Si quis autem hoc attentare Praesumpserit Indignationem Omnipotentis Dei ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus se noverit Incursurum Dat. Romae apud S. Marcum Anno Incarnationis Dom. 1435. 3. Kal. Septemb. Pont. Nostri Anno Primo FINIS A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK I. THE Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth containing the Damnation and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in Latin and English P. 1. II. The first Observation that Pius V. was neither the first nor last Pope who Excommunicated and damn'd Kings and Emperors For 1. before him Pope Constantine Gregory the Second Greg. the Third Greg. the Seventh Gregory the Ninth Innocent the Fourth Paul the Third c. did the same thing And 2. Gregory the Thirteenth and Sixtus the Fifth after him p. 7. III. The second Observation concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to Pius the Fifth his Bull that it is Damnatio Excommunicatio Elizabethae Where it is proved 1. That not only Pius the Fifth but other Popes not short of him in time or impiety use the same hard word Damnation in the Titles prefix'd to their damnatory Bulls wherein they Excommunicate Kings and Emperors 2. The uncharitable Error and Invalidity of their reasons they do or can pretend for doing so p. 15. IV. The third Observation wherein 1. The notion and significations of the word Damnation are explain'd 2. That by the word Damnation in their Anathema's and Damnatory Bulls not only some temporal loss or punishment as to their Bodies or Estates but eternal Damnation of Body and Soul is meant by the Pope and his Party together with the invalidity of their reasons and pretences to justifie them in this particular p. 20. V. The fourth Observation wherein we have 1. The grounds on which Pius the Fifth and other Popes build their Power to Excommunicate and Depose Kings and that in the Supremacy and Plenitude of Power which they pretend our blessed Saviour gave to Peter and in him to all his Successors So that Peter and so every Successor of his was constituted a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms to pull up and throw down to dissipate and destroy to plant and build c. 2. That such Power was by our blessed Saviour given to Peter and his Successors they indeavour to prove out of Scripture and in their Bulls cite the places Gen. 1. 16. and Jer. 1. 10. 3. The ridiculous inconsequence and impertinence of such Papal reasoning which shews them rather to be Fools then Infallible p. 26. VI. The fifth Observation against the Pope's pretended Supremacy 1. That Peter's Supremacy much less the Popes cannot be proved from Matth. 10. 2. where he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus or as in the Latin Fathers Princeps Apostolorum 2. Nor from that place Matth. 16. 18. 19. 3. That St. Paul in Scripture hath a far better pretence to the Supremacy and the Bishoprick of Rome then St. Peter and yet neither he nor any for him ever pretended to any Papal Supremacy 4. How our blessed Saviour and the Apostles yet Peter no more then the rest are in Scripture said to be Foundations of the Church 5. That the Power of the Keys was given to every Apostle as well and as much as to Peter Nay 6. To every Bishop and Priest as is expresly affirm'd in the Authentick Offices of the Roman Church and in their Trent Council and Catechism 7. That every Apostle was Christ's Vicar as well as Peter that the Jesuites profess and in their Institutions do publish it that their Superiors are Christ's Vicars 8. That Pasce Oves Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. though usually is most impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy 9. That the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which utterly overthrows the Popes Supremacy is basely corrupted by Gratian and the Canonists and that it might not appear left out of their old Editions of the Councils p. 36. 37. c. VII The sixth Observation In which a further examination and confutation of the Popish pretended grounds for the Popes Supremacy That they
Omnes docerent néque erat necessarium Quid enim erat Opus ut Omnes à singulis modo Omnes ab hominibus aliae ab aliis docerentur Maldonat in Joh. 21. 15. 16. c. §. 65. p. 1889. E. This he says and truly But then he should have consider'd that if it was impossible for every one of the Apostles to teach all the world then it will be impossible for any one Impossible for Peter to feed all Christ's Sheep in the whole world and yet this he endeavours to prove Quicunque intra Ecclesiam erant Petro pasâ—endos tradit Dicit enim pasce Oves non has aut illas fed pasce Oves meas Omniuâ—i ergo suarum Ovium curam illi dedit Ibid. §. 62. a Ex hoc loco Joh. 21. 15. patet Sanctum Petrum Ejus Successores Romanos Pontifices esse Caput Principem Ecclesiae Omnésque fideles etiam Apostolos Ipsi Subjici ab eo Pasci Regi debere Corn. A Lapide in Joh. 21. 15. p. 547. Col. 2. b Heb. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 1. Pet. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Heb. 13. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Act. 1. 17. 25. f 2. Cor. 4. 5. g Hoc erant Caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus Pari Consortio praediti Honoris Potestatis Cyprian de Unit. Eccles. p. 208. Edit Rigaltij Pastores sunt Omnes Apostoli sed Grex Vnus qui ab Omnibus unanimi Consensione Pascatur Pasce Oves meas belong'd equally to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in Cyprian ' s Opinion as shall appear anon h Nicol. Regaltius in Observatione Galeata Notis suis ad Cypriani Opera praesixa i Vid. Cypr. Epist. 67. p. 128. 129. Edit Rigaltii Epist. 72. Ibid. p. 142. in Calâ—e dictae Epistolae c. Epist. 55. p. 95. k Singulis Pastoribus Episcopis portionem gregis esse adscriptam quam regat unusquisque Actus sui sive Administrationis suae rationem redditurus Non Romae sed in Coelis Non Cornelio sed Christo Negat Cyprianus Ecclesiae Romanae Vllas essâ— Partes in Causa Novatiani peractâ jam in Africâ Cognitione damnâ—ti There lay no Appeal to the Pope as Superior to the Bishops of Africa Rigaltiâ—s in Notis ad 〈◊〉 â—â—stolam 55. p. 95. Notarum p. 77. 78. l Cyprian De Unitate Ecclesiae pag. 208. apud Rigaltium Hoc â—rant Caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Potrus Pari Consortio praediti honoris Potestatis sed Primatus Petro datur m Cyprian Epist. 55. ad Cornelium pag. 95. Ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam Principalem unde unitas exorta est n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quia Vrbs illa Imperaret Patres dederunt Privilegia Conc. Chalcedonense Can. 28. o Ad Ecclesiam Principalem Id est in Vrbe Principali Constitutam Rigaltius ad Epist. Cyprian 55. p. 78. Notarum p Justiniani Constit. Novel 115. Cap. 3. §. 14. Graeco-Lat Lugd. 1571. p. 745. Novel Const. 131. cap. 1. ibid. p. 1056. where the Emperor says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. dictarum quatuor Synodorum dogmata sicut Sanctas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges Observamus Observ. 6. q Christus Catholicam Ecclesiam uni soli in terris Apostolorum Principi Petro PetrÃque Successori Rom. Pontiâ—ici in Potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernandam Ita Bulla dicta in principio r Christus Petrum universi fidelium generis Caput Pastorem Constituit cum illi Oves suas pascendas commendavit ut qui ei Successisset Eandem Plane totius Ecclesiae regendae Potestatem habere voluerit Catechis Trid. Part. 1. De. 9. Symboli Art §. 13. p. 117. Paris 1635. s Cum in Petrì Cathedrâ sedeat ut Petri Successor Christique Vicarius in terris Vniversali Ecclesiae Praesidet Ibid Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. p. 391. t Matth. 10. 1. Mark 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. u Ibid. Matth. 10. 1. x It does not appear in Scripture that Peter ever was at Antioch save once Gal. 2. 11. But Paul was many times and long there and constituted that Church See Act. 11. 26. Act. 14. 21. 28. Act. 15. 35. Act. 18. 22. 23. y Paul was there two whole years Act. 28. 30. writ them a long and excellent Epistle But 't is certain Peter never writ to them nor can it appear from Scripture that he was ever two weeks much less two years at Rome Where St. Paul is by Origen said to be next Christ Primus Ecclesiarum Fundator Origen Contra Celsum lib. 1. pag. 49. Graeco-Lat z Matth 28. 19. 20. a Mark 16. 15. b Matth. 10. 5. 6. c Euseb. 1. 3. Demonstrat Evangelicae p. 136. and he has our blessed Saviour's word for it Matth. 24. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Franc. Victoria Relect. Theol. Lugduni 1587. Relect. 2. De Potestate Ecclesiae Concl. 4. p. 85. where he tells us Apostoli Omnes habuerunt Aequalem Potestatem cum Petro. Quod sic Intelligo quod Quilibet Apostolorum habuit Potestatem Ecclesiasticam in Toto Orbe ad Omnes Actus ad quos Petrus habuit Non tamen loquor de illis Actibus qui spectant ad solum summum Pontificem ut est Congregatio Generalis Concilij And this he there proves as to their Power over the whole world and to Acts only and he dared do no otherwise he excepts some few to which no Pope for many Ages pretended In the present Roman Breviary the Universal Jurisdiction of Paul as well as Peter is acknowledg'd Paul an Apostle Praedicator veritatis per Vniversum Mundum In Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae Febr. 22. e A Learned Papist Doctor of the Sorbon newly come to my hand has saved me the labour and ex professo and data opera proved that all the Eight first General Councils were call'd solely by the Emperors The Popes did indeed as he evidently proves sometimes Petition the Emperors to call a Council at such a time or place but they were always both call'd and confirm'd by the Emperors Vid. Edm. Richer D. Sorb in Hist. de Conc. General Colon. 1680. f Act. 15. 2. g Act. 15. 7. h Act. 15. 19. 20. 21. i Act. 15. 22. k Ibidem l Act. 15. 23. Vide dictum Edmundum Richerium D. Sorbonicum in Hist. Conc. Generalium lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 5. pag. 401. Edit Colon. 1680. Ubi ex Card. Alliaceno Concilio hoc Apostolico Act. 15. demonstrat Petrum Primatum qualem Jesuitae vellent non habuisse sed Primatum illum Monarchicum ab Hildebrando seu Gregorio 7. retroductum Ibid. §. 2. 5. m Act. 16. 4. n Act. 8. 14. a Act. 11. 2. 3. b Petrus Apostolorum Primus rationem reddere Ecclesiae Cogitur nec indigne fert quia non Dominum sed Ministrum Ecclesiae se agere sciebat Ferus in Act. 11. 2. c Impijautem Pontifices Nunc
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