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
that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome is true is this The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it and in their Index Expurgatorius Commanded it to be blotted out But Erasmus adds further That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest because where many are number'd there is a necessity we begin with some one and 't is not material which we begin with And This the Inquisitors let pass without a Deleatur they do not condemn it to be blotted out and so seem to approve it otherwise it had not pass'd so that even by our Adversaries consent all that can be rationally Inferr'd from that Text where in numbering the Apostles Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first is only a Primacy of Order which we willingly grant but no Primacy much less a Supremacy of Authority Dominion and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles which the Pope and his Party desire and we justly deny 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus so Princeps or Prince amongst the best Latin Authors usually signifies Order Only or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes without any Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter I have Authentick warrant even the Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent publish'd by Pius V. The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth and then Revised by the Authority of Clement VIII and Vrban VIII and Printed at Antverp 1660. In this Breviary we have this Hymn in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes Princes of the Churches For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two nor Properly to any but them two in that Place Though elsewhere it relates to all the Apostles as in the Place cited in the Margent when after the Invitatory as they call it Come let us adore the Lord King of the Apostles it follows thus Aeterna Christi munera Apostolorum Gloria Palmas Hymnos debitos Laetis canamus mentibus Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes according to the Decree of the Trent Council All the other Apostles under our blessed Saviour and by his Authority were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Peter Now I desire to know how these things will Consist Pius V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth says That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only to Peter and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms so he in his Bull and yet the same Pope in this Roman Breviary for it was Approved and Published by him and the Hymn here cited says That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes and if so then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed no the Commission of every Apostle given by our blessed Saviour was as unlimited and as large as Peters This will appear in all the Particulars of it equally given to all as they are expresly set down in Scripture from whence alone we can surely know what their Authority and Commission was Our blessed Saviour tells them and us 1. As my Father sent me so send I you There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all 2. Then he breath'd upon them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them It was that Holy Spirit which gave them 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine 2. Power to work Miracles for Confirmation of it 3. Then he adds whose sins ye retain they are retained c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church which is elsewhere called The Power of the Keys which Consists in binding and loosing retaining and remitting sins For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited and is by our Adversaries confess'd So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys the Power of binding and loosing of retaining and remitting sins is Equally given to all the Apostles to every One as well as Peter 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province where and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power Go and Teach All Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you Their Diocese was the World Go ye into All The World and preach the Gospel to every Creature every man And the administring the Sacraments and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Goâ—pel was the business they were to do in that their Diocese 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance Lo I am with you Always even to the End of the World These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles and which to me seems Evident without difference or distinction Equally to all to Simon the Cannite for so it should be writ as well and as much as to Simon Peter If any think otherwise if he can and will by any Cogent Reason make it appear either 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was in Scripture given peculiarly to Peter whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms as Pope Pius V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms I say he who can and will make both or either of these appear shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery and I shall for the future have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy which at present I take to be a groundless Error without any proof or probability I know that the Popes in their Constitutions and their Party usually urge that place in Matthew to prove Peter's and thence their own vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves not excepted the words These Thou art Peter and upon This Rock I will build my Church And I give unto thee The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven From this Place most
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
enough tells us That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All And Irenaeus gives the Reason of it His Sufferings were more He planted more Churches He writ more Epistles then they all his being Fourteen and all the rest but Seven and they in respect of his short ones too which then were and ever since have been and while the World stands will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy and for St. Paul's Preference before him at least his Independence upon Peter as the Supream Monarch of the Church is That he tells the Corinthians That the care of All The Churches lay upon him Nor that only but that he made Orders and Constitutions for All those Churches which they were bound to observe So I Ordain saith he in All the Churches So our English truly renders it I know the Vulgar Latin which the Trent Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick renders it otherwise So I teach in all Churches but the word there signifies not to teach but properly to Ordain and Legally Constitute Define and Command So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text and therefore he says That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches was giving them a Law which they were to obey So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture and that by himself who best knew and was Testis idoneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Witness beyond all Exception 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All whereas in Scripture no such thing is said of Peter or any other Apostle Upon consideration of the Premises some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul A Preacher to the whole World So Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places as of James at Jerusalem John in Asia Peter and Paul at Antioch c. He adds concerning Paul That he did particularly Officiate to the whole World And to the same purpose Theodoret Expounding the words of the Apostle That the care of All the Churches lay upon him He says That the sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul More than this cannot be said of Peter nor is there half so much said of him as of St. Paul in Scripture Had Peter told us That the care of All the Churches lay upon him and that He made Orders and Constitutions to be observed In All Churches both which are expresly said of St. Paul the Canonists and Popish Party would have had some pretence who now have none for Peter's Supremacy I urge not this to Ascribe to Paul that Supremacy we deny to Peter For neither had they nor any other Apostle any such thing but only to shew That St. Paul his Laboâ—s Sufferings the many Churches founded by him and His Canonical Writings consider'd may be thought not without reason a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church then St. Peter 2. But as it is and must be confess'd by Divines Ancient and Modern Protestants and Papists That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation and that Petra on which the Church is Built So there is also a Personal Foundation evidently mention'd in Scripture I mean Persons on whom the Christian Church is built And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour 2. His Apostles 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built is evident from the Scriptures before Cited Such a Rock as Peter neither was nor could be much less any of those they call his Successors For 1. Our blessed Saviour was and still is a Rock on which as Irenaeus tells us the Vniversal Church both before and since his coming into the World was built He was promised by God presently after the fall of Adam and then successfully by all the Prophets His Death and Passion was a Propitiation as well for the Sins of those who lived before as ours who live after it and those Promises of the Messiah were such as all the Patriarchs Prophets and Pious men before Christ did know and believe Nay if we believe Eusebius the Promises of the Messias were clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets though in a less degree and measure of clearness and their Belief and suitable Obedience such that though they had not the name yet they might truly be call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and so it was to all the Ancient Church by the Prophets who foretold them of the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd and yet he says that He preached No other Things then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come And this is a truth so manifest that to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers Peter Lombard and the Popish School-men writing De fide Antiquorum of the Faith by which the Saints before our blessed Saviour were saved they all say that they then as we now were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer The difference was 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo we in Christo Actu Exhibito 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming was more Imperfect and Implicit Ours since he is come and the Gospel clearly publish'd much more Perfect and Explicite This I say to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock on which the Church under the Old Testament was built and in this Particular such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was nor could be it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation on which the whole Christian Church is built even the Apostles themselves as well as others who all of them Peterâ— as well as Paul in respect of Christ who is the great Immoveable Rock which sustains the whole Building are Superstructions though otherwise in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching they are call'd Foundations yet only Secundary Foundations all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ So in the like Instance all the Apostles Peter as well as the rest were both Sheep and Shepherds 1. Sheep in respect of Christ who is the great and chief Shepherd My Sheep hear my voice says our blessed Saviour The Apostles did so when he call'd them they heard and obey'd him Again I lay down my life for my Sheep so he did for his Apostles else
they could not have been saved And therefore they also are his Sheep 2. Yet they were Shepherds too sent by and subordinate to the great and chief Shepherd Jesus Christ in respect of the Church and Christians over which the Holy Ghost had set them 3. Our blessed Saviour is such a foundation and Founder of his Church as does not find but make these Lively Stones which are the Materials with which he builds it He gives his Spirit and by it Grace and a Lively Faith which things alone make men Lively Stones and fit for that Building This no Apostle not Peter much less any succeeding Pope ever did or could do nor without great folly and impiety can pretend to 4. Our blessed Saviour is such a Rock such a Foundation and Founder of the Church as was and is Proprietary and the sole true Owner of it 't is his House purchased with his precious Blood and he ever had and still hath a Magisterial and Imperial power over it to rule and govern it He is King of Saints 'T is true the Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations and Founders of the Church Those of the Judaical Church before our blessed Saviour's Incarnation these of the Christian Church after it But the Power and the Authority the Prophets or Apostles had even the greatest of them Moses or Peter was only Ministerial the Authority of Servants deriv'd from our blessed Saviour and Exercised under him So the Apostle tells us That Moses was faithful in all his House i. e. in the Judaical Church As A Servant but Christ as a Son over his Own House whose House Are We c. So in the Christian Church the Apostles All of them were Prime and Principal Ministers from and under Christ to call and build the Church They were Servants of Christ and for his sake of the Church they had Ministerium but not Imperium Neither Peter nor any other had that vast Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church which is not without great Error and Impiety pretended to when they blasphemously say That Peter was our blessed Saviours Successor and by him Constituted the Head of the Vniversal Church with the very same Power our blessed Saviour had But this they say only without any Proof or Probability and so transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. But although we say and have evident Reason and Authority for it That our blessed Saviour was the one and only prime and chief foundation and founder of the Church and all the Apostles Peter as well as the Rest Superstructions in respect of him yet we know and acknowledge that both in Scripture and Antiquity they are called Foundations and Founders of the Christian Church in respect of the Churches call'd Converted and Constituted by them but all Equally so Peter was no more a foundation then Paul or James or John For 1. They were all immediately call'd by our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon Peter or any body else as is Evident in the Text it self And this is generally Confess'd by the Popish Commentators even the Jesuits such as Tirinus Menochius c. I say all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship from our blessed Saviour except Matthias and he was not chosen by Peter who neither knew nor had any such Supremacy as without all reason is now ascribed to him but the Colledge of the Apostles and consent of the faithful there present And though a Learned Jesuit zealous for Peter and the Popes Supremacy would have Peter to be the Directior in that business the Election of Matthias yet he cannot deny but it was done by the Common Consent of the Apostles and Brethren 2. As the Apostles all of them Matthias excepted had their call Immediately and Equally from our blessed Saviour without any dependence upon St. Peter so they had their Commission immediately from him and in it the very same Power equally given to all The same power given to any one even St. Peter was given to every one This is Evident 1. From those plain Texts where their Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour before the Resurrection when they were sent to the Jews only and the very same Power equally given to all 2. And from those other as clear and plain Texts wherein after the Resurrection they had Commission and Authority given them by our blessed Saviour to preach to all Nations where it is As my Father sent me so I send you and Go ye c. All equally sent no difference or distinction of the Persons as to any Priviledge or Precedence no Degrees of Power more or greater in one then every one Their Commission and Authority given in it was the very same and equally given to all the Apostles These Truths are so evident in the Text that some sober Popish Writers do both profess and industriously prove them Franc A Victoria prime Professor of Divinity at Salamanca in Spain and as they esteemed and called him an Excellent and Incomparable Divine Proposes and proves these two Conclusions 1. All the Power the Apostles had was by them received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the Apostles had Equal Power with Peter And then he Explains his meaning thus That every Apostle had Ecclesiastical Power in the whole World and to do Every Act which Peter had Power to do But then to please the Pope and his Party he Excepts those Acts which were proper and belong'd peculiarly to the Pope as Calling of a General Council But this is gratis dictum without any pretence of proof or probability from Scripture and evidently contradictory to the known Practise of the Christian World after the Emperors became Christians who alone and not the Pope call'd all the Ancient Councils as is fully proved by a late and Learned Sorbon Doctor 5. But to proceed That Place in Matthew is urged in the foregoing Objection to prove the Monarchical Supremacy of Peter I Give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place I consider 1. That this Text is generally urg'd though most Impertinently to prove Peter's and the Popes Power over Kings and Emperors So Innocent III. Cites it to prove that the Emperor is subject to the Pope To the same purpose Pope Boniface VIII produceth it in his Impious and as to the Nonsense and Inconsequence of it ridiculous Extravagant which Bellarmine approves and Leo. X. and his Lateran Council which they call a General one Innovates and Confirms and yet a late Jesuit expresly tells us and you may be sure with the Approbation of his Superiors That the Keys were given Only to Peter These and many more quote this Place to the
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
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
1. Their many and monstrous Errors contradictory to sacred Scripture and the sense and belief of the Christian World for a thousand years after Christ our blessed Saviour which they approve and publickly receive as Articles of their Faith in their new Creed the Trent-Council and Roman Catechism Considering also their many Superstitions and stupid Idolatry professed and practised by them in their sacred Offices their Missal Breviary Horae B. Virginis their Ritual and Pontifical c. I say these things impartially considered they may be and really are Idolatrous Hereticks but 't is impossible they should be what they against greatest evidence pretend to true Catholicks 2. Considering the unchristian indeed Antichristian Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Party Excommunicating Cursing and Damning all Christians save themselves without and against that Charity which the Gospel requires and so Schismatically cutting off from the Body of Christ whole Kingdoms at a Clap as Pius the Fifth does in the following Bull which are things inconsistent with the Christian Temper and Charity of a true Catholick I say these things considered and that the Pope and his Party are really guilty of such uncharitable Actions dividing and violating the Vnion of the Church it evidently follows that they are so far from being true Catholicks that they are great and formal Schismaticks And therefore they must pardon me if in these Papers I do not call them what really they are not Catholicks and for the same Reason I do not call them Roman Catholicks For as it is neither reason nor sense to call him an English Gentleman who is no Gentleman at all or him a Sorbon Doctor who never saw Paris or ever had or desired that Degree so it is alike irrational to call him a Roman Catholick who really is an Erring Schismatick and no Catholick at all 5. I know some otherwise learned and pious Writers who say that those words Roman Catholick are inconsistent and imply a Contradiction as signifying a particular Universal But this I confess is a manifest mistake For not only particular Persons of which before but particular Churches in this or that City be it great or little have anciently and usually been call'd Catholick Churches without any Contradiction or Impropriety In an Epistle of a great Council at Antioch we find the Bishop of that City call'd a Catholick and that particular Church a Catholick Church So in the Subscriptions to Nazianzen's last Will and Testament Optimus Bp. of Antioch subscribes thus Optimus Bp. of the Catholick Church at Antioch and the rest of the Bishops who subscribe that Testament and they are six or seven use the same Form So Nazianzen subscribes himself Bishop of the Catholick Church in Constantinople Amphilochius Bishop of the Catholick Church in Iconium and so all the rest In the Appendix to the Theodosian Code Pope Vigilius begins his Encyclical Epistle thus Vigilius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae Bishop of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome So Pope Leo the Great and many more Bishops of Rome uses the very same form The Popes stiled themselves Catholicae Ecclesiae non Orbis sed Urbis Romae Episcopos The Antichristian stile of Universal Bishop as Pope Gregory the Great calls it was not yet usurped at Rome The Bishops of Rome then and their Church were Catholick and so was every Orthodox Bishop and his Church as well and as much as they Constantinople Iconium Antioch c. and their Bishops were as truly Catholick as St. Peter's Successor or Rome it self The truth is evidently this the Pope and his Party are in this nec Christi nec Petri sed Donati Successores they do not follow Peter or our blessed Saviour as they vainly bragg but that impious Heretick Donatus whose damnable Schism and Heresie they have espoused St. Augustin who well knew it tells us in several places That the Donatists assumed to themselves the Name of Catholick said that their Sect was the only true Church and so damn'd all other Christians and upon this Heretical Opinion they Schismatically separated from the whole Catholick Church The Pope and his Party with as little reason and charity do the very same thing they as the Donatists anciently Heretically affirm That they and they only are truly Catholicks and the only Members of the true Christian and Catholick Church and then Schismatically Seperate from Excommunicate and Damn all other Christians 6. And further that I may freely speak what I really believe I am so far from believing the Pope and his Party to be what they vainly pretend the only true Christian and Catholick Church that I do believe them and so did thousands before Luther and many whole Kingdoms and Provinces since to be Ecclesia Malignantium an Antichristian Sect and Synagogue in side highly erroneous and in facto as highly impious And the Pope so far from being Peter's Successor and our B. Saviour's Vicar-General that he is that man of Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Adversary of our blessed Saviour and the great Antichrist the Apostle speaks of who Exalts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Kings and Emperors This I hope will in part appear by what is said in the following Papers At present I shall desire the Impartial Reader who possibly may read this short Epistle and trouble himself no further to read what follows to consider That the Pope really and professedly does Exalt himself above all Kings and Emperors and so has this Mark of the Beast and Indelible Character of Antichrist That he does so Exalt himself will evidently appear thus 1. Pope Innocent the Third tells the Emperor of Constantinople and with prodigious Error and Impudence indeavours to prove it out of Scripture That the Pope is as much greater Then the Emperor as The Sun is greater Then the Moon So Innocent the third and that we may be sure his Successors liked it well Gregory the Ninth approves and refers it into the Body of Canon-Law And Greg. the Thirteenth approves it too and with the other Decretals confirms it for Law and 't is continued in all Editions of that Law ever since It is then certain and confess'd That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is call'd God above all Kings and Emperors and that he is far greater then they And if you inquire of the Proportion how much he is greater I say 2. That their approved and received Glosses on their Law with some difference of Opinion calculate how many times the Sun is greater then the Moon and then infer the Pope's Greatness above the Emperor And here 1. The Author of the Gloss Bernardus de Botono was the man a good Lawyer but sure I am no good Astronomer tells us ignorantly and ridiculously That the Sun is greater than the Moon and consequently the Pope greater than the Emperor Forty seaven times This is
Vicars and Successors of Christ and have the Power of the Keys to bind and loose retain and remit sins Equally given to them All. Now if this be true then it will inevitably follow That all the Arguments they usually bring to prove the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy even over Kings and Emperors because he was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him I say All such Arguments from such Topicks will not only be inconsequent but indeed altogether impertinent and ridiculous For if this Argument be good and concluding The Keys were given to Peter and he is the Vicar of Christ Ergo He is the sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church Then this will be as good and concluding Every Apostle as well as Peter was the Vicar of Christ and had the Keys given him Ergo Every Apostle was sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church And then by this wild Logick we shall have Twelve or Thirteen Persons and every one of them sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church That the Power of the Keys was by our blessed Saviour given to All the Apostles as well as Peter seems to me Evident by the Premisses and that all of them as much and as well as He were Christi Vicarij Christ's Vicars may be as Evident and must be Confess'd even by our Adversaries unless they will deny the plain Truth of Scripture and their own received Principles For 1. Our blessed Saviour tells us As my Father sent me so send I you Christ was our great Apostle sent immediately by his Father so that he was Legatus Vicarius Patris his Father's Vicar and Ambassador as St. Ambrose says And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles as his Vicars and Ambassadors So the same Father tells us in the same place and St. Paul says as much of himself and the other Apostles He hath Committed to us the Word of Reconciliation now then We are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs's stead All the Apostles were by our blessed Saviour Commission'd and sent as his Ambassadors what they did was in Christ's stead and place They were his Vicars and what they did was as his Deputies Vice-Christi supplying his place Thus Lyranus and the Interlinatory Glossator and they no Lutherans Explain that place so the Famous Bishop of Paris and Father of the School-men Peter Lombard so Pope Gregory the Great nay the Jesuits Instituta Societat Jesu Tom. 3. pag. 262. 263. acknowledge their Superiors though they be neither Popes nor Apostles to be Vicarios Christi Christ's Vicars And that I may neither trouble the Reader nor my self with more Testimonies Their own Authentick Offices which have been or are Approved and publickly used in their Church expresly say the very same thing That the Apostles All of them as well as Peter were Christ's Vicars particularly the present Roman Missal as does manifestly appear by the place quoted in the Margent This then being certain and by our Adversaries Confess'd That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour at the same time and in the very same words when and wherein they were given to Peter I say this being granted as it is and must it will be absolutely impossible for them to prove any Superiority in Peter much less a Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles from his Title of Christ's Vicar or the Power of the Keys both which every Apostle had as well and as much as He unless you will say That very Power which only makes Peter Equal to the rest makes him their Monarch and Superior Sure I am if this Argument be good and they have no better Peter is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo he is Superior to John Then this will be good too John is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo He is Superior to Peter But enough if not too much of this For the Arguments they bring for the Popes Supremacy drawn from his being Christ's Vicar and having the Power of the Keys are such as rather deserve pity or scorn then any serious Answer were it not that their greatest men for Place and Learning even their Infallible Popes in their Authentick Bulls perpetually urge them to prove the Pope Superior to Kings and Emperors and to have what Pope Pius V. in This Impious Bull against Queen Elizabeth pretends to Power to Depose them and Absolve Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity The Premises considered I think it is Evident and I doubt not but Impartial and Intelligent men think so too 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys Committed to him by our blessed Saviour and that Immediately without Any dependence on Peter or any other Sure I am that Cardinal Cusanus though a zealous Assertor of the Pope's Supremacy was convinc'd of this Truth as to St. Paul and so he might for the Rest and does in Terminis Acknowledge it He says That both Peter and Paul were Ecclesiae Principes Princes of the Catholick Church That they both of them had the Power of the Keys power to bind and loose and both of them had it Immediately from our blessed Saviour That as Peter was Primate as to the Jews so Paul was Primate as to the Gentiles and so that in this Primacy Peter was not subject to Paul nor Paul to Peter but each of them had that Primacy Immediately from Christ without any dependence on each other And this Cusanus there proves out of Ambrose Augustine and Hierome 2. And as every Apostle as well as Peter was Vicar of Christ and had the Power of the Keys so it appears by the Premises and is Confess'd by our Adversaries in the Places before Cited that all of them transferred that Title and Power to their Successors so that every Bishop and every Priest after the Apostles is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Whence it Evidently follows that the Bishops of Rome notwithstanding their great Noise and groundless pretence to the contrary are no more our blessed Saviour's Vicars nor have any more Power of the Keys then any I say again then any other Bishop in the World The Pope and Bishop of Rome no more then the Bishops of Roan and Rochester For their own Oecumenical and with them Infallible Council of Trent assures us of two things 1. That all Bishops are Apostolorum Successores Successors of the Apostles 2. That our blessed Saviour when he was about to Ascend into Heaven left Sacerdotes that is Bishops and other Priests his Vicars and gave them the Power of the Keys to bind and loose to remit and retain sins To conclude this Point If the Pope and his
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
Papias then is in the Text For he tells us That Papias besides his knowledge of Scripture was a man certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true then that Character I have given him before is not so and then his Antiquity which was great and his great Learning in all Arts and Sciences as well as Scripture consider'd his Testimony that Babylon whence St. Peter writ was Rome will be more valid and of greater Authority In Answer to this I say 1. That all this Commendation of Papias before mention'd is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius that 't is a plain Forgery Eusebius as to this passage is evidently corrupted and this Commendation of Papias by whose Ignorance or Knavery I know not shuffled into the Text long after Eusebius his death For 2. Ruffinus who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago in the place above quoted says only thus About this time flourished Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis So the Printed Edition of Ruffinus by B. Rhenanus and a very Ancient and Compleat MS. of Ruffinus in my Keeping and Possession exactly agrees with it and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias which is now extant in Eusebius And therefore we may Conclude that Anciently it was not there but the Text of Eusebius by fraud or folly is since Corrupted For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him there had been no reason he should have left it out 3. And which is yet more considerable Valesius a very Learned Roman Catholick who last published Eusebius Ingenuously Confesses that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius which he made use of in his Edition not any one of them had that Commendation of Papias and therefore he doubts not but these words were added by some Ignorant Scholiast contrary to the Judgment and Sense of Eusebius For says he how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man and Most Skill'd in Scripture who in the same Book says he was A Rule and Simple Person of Very Little Wit or Judgment And his Ignorance especially appears as in other things in that 1. He says that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses was Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says That it was Philip the Deacon 2. Papias said and in his Writings published his Opinion That hearing Oral Traditions was more profitable then reading Scriptures That is to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons and that in Matters of Religion was more profitable then to read the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely Inspired Infallible Persons St. John tells us he had writ so many and such things as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation yet left out thousands of things which he thought not necessary But Papias with great Ignorance and Impiety prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour which the Apostles had omitted as not necessary nor so useful as those things they had writ And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John his Infallible Amanuensis calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful which they had omitted as not useful at all And this his Ignorance and want of Judgment further appears 3. Because Eusebius tells us That he had amongst his Traditions strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour and other things more Fabulous and amongst them his Millenary Heresie of which he was Father and to the Infecting many others did propagate it And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Scripture as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us And yet this simple Person and Arch-Heretick is the principal and prime Witness Rome has to prove that Babylon in the Epistle of Peter signifies Rome and that Peter was there For other place in Scripture they have none and only Papias and his Followers for that By the Premisses I think it may appear to Impartial Persons That seeing Papias preferr'd Tradition or some mens talk before the Scriptures that he was a man of very weak understanding and err'd by misunderstanding Scripture that he writ Fables rather than History and maintain'd the Millenary Opinion which Rome now calls Heresie I say these things Consider'd his Authority and Credit is if any at all very little and yet 't is all our Adversaries have his Followers Testimonies being derived from and depending upon his to prove out of Scripture that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome or ever was there This is a Truth so manifest that not only Protestants but most Learned Roman Catholicks say and prove that Peter writ that Epistle not at Rome but Babylon in Chaldea And further that he did not write it at Rome will be evident from Scripture and what their own most Learned Author Confesses For 1. Baronius tells us It was writ Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable both he Petavius and others generally say That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholick evidently Confutes from Scripture and good Authorities and plainly shews that Peter was always in Judea or Syria till the death of Herod Agrippa which was in the fourth year of Claudius and the Six and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour who never came thither till the year Forty six unless they will say and they do say things as impossible that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there 4. Nay 't is certain from what Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter continued in Judaea till the Council met at Jerusalem about the Question concerning Circumcision and the Ceremonial Law Sure it is that he was present at that Council which was Anno Christi 51. says Baronius Bellarmine and others the Learned Valesius thinks and gives his reason for it more probable to me then any brought for the Contrary Opinions that the Council was held Anno Claudij 7. and Christi 49. take which Computation you please if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there several years before he came thither 5. Nay 't is further Evident let that Council be when they will that Peter was not at Rome in the year 51. which Baronius mentions but at Jerusalem For St. Paul tells us that three years after his Conversion which was about the year 37. he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and found him there And then fourteen years after which was about the year 51. he went to Jerusalem again and
Rome Observe 1. That Eusebius says indeed that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and then by our blessed Saviour's Command as they say went to Rome But so far is he from saying that he was seven years Bishop there that he expresly says That Euodius was the First Bishop of Antioch 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome and refers us to what Eusebius says ad Ann. 2. Claudij The man who understood no Greek is miserably mistaken as Universally he is when he meddles with Greek Authors unless their Translations be true for Eusebius in his Greek Text as all know and may see has no such thing as Five and twenty years nay he does not so much as say that he was Bishop of Rome at all much less that he was Five and twenty years Bishop there But the Latin Copies Interpolated and Corrupted as thousands others are by Roman Arts deceived him But to let this pass Baronius says That Peter was Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Five and twenty of Rome So that in the whole he was Two and thirty years Bishop in Syria and Italy and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was Anno Christi 34. to which if 32. be added the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome the product will be 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a Gentile-Church and his Martyrdom was 13. Neronis that is Anno Christi 68. or as Baronius Computes 69. whence by this their Account it evidently follows that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom about two years only excepted Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a Gentile-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
shall be bound in Heaven we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Excommunicate all who shew him any favour or obey him as Emperor And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us That the Pope has by Divine Right not by any Human Constitutions that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction over the Vniversal Church as Peter's Successor sitting in his Chair and as Vicar of Christ. 5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence is That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They seem to be in Love with these words Dabo Tibi Claves c. For in their Offices for only two of St. Peter's Festivals they are repeated almost Twenty times But how Impertinent this is to prove any Supremacy much less their Papal Monarchy will evidently appear in that this Power of the Keys which they would appropriate to the Pope was given to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter as is proved before nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World For 1. So their own Roman Breviary published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth and afterwards revised by Clement the Eighth and Vrban the Eighth expresly says for having told us that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter it follows That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church 2. Their Trent Catechism having spoke of the Power of the Keys afterwards tells us to whom our blessed Saviour gave and concredited that Power before he Ascended into Heaven And it was To the Bishops and Presbyters So that Catechism publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius the Fifth And 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentick Form how they Ordain a Priest in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest in the very same words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you remit they are remitted And whose sins you retain they are retained 4. Lastly The Trent Fathers are yet if that be possible more express For speaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolution They declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys belong to any save The Bishops and Presbyters and who think those words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose remit and retain sins In which words the Council does I suppose Infallibly Declare at least in our Adversaries Opinion 1. That those two Texts which are cited in the Margent of the Council are to be understood of the Power of the Keys though in one of them that of John the Keys be not expresly named 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters but to none else neither to Lay-men nor any Inferior Orders By the Premisses I think it evident and confess'd by our Adversaries that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys as well as Peter and since they left the World every Bishop and Priest as well as the Pope Whence it further and manifestly follows That 't is impossible that the Bishop of Rome or any of his party should as they vainly indeavor prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys which is common and really possess'd by so many thousands beside himself For this is just as if Titius should brag that he is far richer then Sempronius because he has Five hundred pounds per Annum when Sempronius has an equal Estate and of the very same Value Or as if Sejus should say he had far greater Power then Cajus when the Power given them by the Emperor was equal and the same And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges that in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions received into the Body of their Canon Law Dabo Tibi Claves this Power of the Keys is laid as a Sandy and Insignificant Foundation on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Supremacy I shall Instance only in two though I might in many more 1. In that famous Decretal of Innocent the Third before cited wherein he impiously and ridiculously indeavors to prove that the Papal Dignity is as much greater then the Imperial as the Sun is greater than the Moon And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position he comes at last to this Dabo Tibi Claves to the Power of the Keys as the most known ground of his Supremacy 2. The second Instance is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth in the Council of Lions It is Extant in the Canon Law and two things there prefix'd to that most Impious Decretal 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council for a perpetual memory of it And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichristian Pride and Impiety 2. That the Pope can Depose the Emperor for lawful Causes And then in that Impious Decretal he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of the Keys which he says was given to him in Peter when our blessed Saviour said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven c. so he and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past applies that Power of the Keys which is purely spiritual to carnal and temporal ends and impious purposes And here it seems to me Considerable and I believe will seem so to pious and dis-interessed Persons that in former Roman Breviaries as also in our Portiforium or Breviary of Sarum and in the Missals of Salisbury and Hereford we have this Prayer 1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo Collatis Clavibus Regni Coelestis Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti Concede ut Intercessionis ejus Auxilio c. O God who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls grant that by the help of his Intercession c. Where it is evident that in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too the Power of the Keys is spiritual to bind mens souls if Impenitent and if Contrite and truly Penitent to loose them I say spiritual for edification and saving mens souls and not temporal for Deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of
body else can do to free the Pope from being the great Antichrist For if either Caligula or Simon Magus who have been dead this Sixteen hundred years and more be that Antichrist then unless you will have two or three such Antichrists The Pope is secure and wrong'd by those who call him so miscall'd Antichrist Sed salva res est there is little danger from such extravagant Opinions they will neither be beneficial to the Pope nor prejudicial to his Adversaries to believe and prove him to be Antichrist That Caligula or Simon Magus was that great Antichrist none or if any very few believe The Reformed Churches say that the Pope is Antichrist and have great reason to say so many of the Propheties and Predictions of him in Scripture being now actually fulfilled and so the truth of the Prediction made Evident and easie to be understood by the Event On the other side the Popish Party say that Antichrist is not yet come and so neither Party does believe Caligula or Simon Magus to be Antichrist because it is a Novel and Apocryphal Hypothesis take which of the two you will without truth or probability Sure I am that the Reasons those two Learned Persons bring for their Opinions are evidently Illogical and Inconsequent For 1. If Grotius his proofs for Caligula be cogent and concluding then Dr. Hammonds for Simon Magus are Inconsequent and if Dr. Hammonds be Good those of Grotius are not Whence 't is evident that all the proofs of the one Party at least are Impertinent and to prove his Position Insufficient 2. But indeed all the Reasons they both bring to prove their several Positions are as I said Illogical and Inconsequent That this may not be gratis dictum I say 1. That both their proofs are built and rely upon the same ground they take not all but only some of the Characters and Marks of Antichrist which the Apostles give him in Scripture 2. They indeavor to accommodate and apply those Marks to Caligula or Simon Magus and think they make it appear that such Marks are really found in Caligula or Simon Magus 3. And hence they Argue and Conclude thus Such Marks of Antichrist are to be found in Caligula or Simon Magus Ergo They the one of them at least are that Antichrist Or which is all one Magus and Antichrist agree in some things Ergo They are the same 4. Now such Arguing is miserably Illogical and Inconsequent and no better then this A Duck and a Goose do agree in many things each of them has one Head two Legs two Eyes a flat Bill or Beak and sometimes Feathers of the same colour c. Ergo A Duck is a Goose. Or thus Sempronius and Titius agree in many things they have the same Father and Mother Romans both born in the same Hour being Twins bread at the same School both good Scholars c. Ergo Titius is Sempronius The Reasons those Learned men bring to prove their several Antichrists prove no more then those I have given that is just nothing 5. The reason of such Inconsequence in such Arguments is this Young Sophisters in the University can tell you out of Porphyrie Aristotle and their Scholiasts That every individual person or thing is made up and does consist of such Properties and Qualifications Quorum Collectio nunquam in aliquo alio Eadem esse potest It is certain that a Collection of all the Properties and Qualifications which Constitute any Individual person cannot be in any other person whomsoever though it is as certain that some of them may Now had Grotius or Dr. Hammond taken a Collection of all the Characters and Marks of Antichrist given him in Scripture and made it appear that all those Marks had been really found in Caius Caligula or Simon Magus their proofs had been Logical and Consequent This they neither did nor could But their accommodation and applying only some of the Marks of the Beast to Caius or Magus and thence Concluding that they were Antichrist such deductions are evidently Illogical and Inconsequent And so much the more Inconsequent because even those marks of Antichrist which they indeavour to prove to be really in Caligula or Simon Magus never were in either of them in that sense and extent in which they were and since his coming are to be found in Antichrist If any man censure me as may be some will for contradicting those two Learned Persons Dr. Hammond and Grotius all the Apology I shall make for it needs none is only this It is as lawful for me to contradict them in defence of evident truth as it was for them to contradict each other and the Christian World in defence of a manifest Error 9. The Pope in this his Impious and Lying Bull declares the Queen to be what he really was and she was not a Slave of Sin a Heretick and a favourer of Hereticks And then with a prodigious Antichristian Pride and Impiety pronounceth his Penal Sentence against her of Damnation Excommunication Deprivation c. And here it is further to be observed 1. What this Papal Power is and whence he has it which he pretends to inable and authorize him to sit Judge and pass such Damnatory Sentences against Princes and Supream Powers for Heresie 2. What that Heresie is and who the Hereticks who by the Pope are so severely damn'd for it 3. What those punishments are which they pretend they may and actually do Inflict upon such Hereticks 1. For the first Pius the Fifth in the beginning of this Impious Bull tells us that this Papal Power is Divine For he says That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome Princes over all Nations and Kingdoms with a Plenitude of Power to Pull up Dissipate and Destroy c. Thus he and so others in their Damnatory Bulls but with some variation and if it were possible in such words as are more Extravagant Erroneous and Impious I shall only Instance in one Paulus the Fourth who was next Predecessor save one to Pius the Fifth who in his Bull against Hereticks and Schismaticks and their Favourers expresses his power to damn them thus The Pope of Rome here in Earth is Vicar or Vice-Roy of God and our Lord Jesus Christ and has Plenitude of Power over Nations and Kingdoms and is Judge of All men and not to be Judged by any Man in the World And that you may see that they are not asham'd to pretend to and usurp such an Antichristian Power for none but Antichrist ever pretended to it This Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth is referr'd into the Body of their Canon Law almost One hundred years ago dedicated to Cardinal Cajetan and lately publish'd again as a part of their Law without any Contradiction and therefore with the approbation of the Pope or his Party That this their Opinion of the Papal Power is far from truth
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
neither do nor can prove that Peter ever had any such Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and all Christians with the reasons why they cannot 2. If it were granted which is evidently untrue that he had such a Power yet it neither does nor can appear by Scripture or any just Medium that it was hereditary and to pass to his Successor but might be personal and as his Apostleship did dye with him 3. And if it were granted which neither is nor ever can be proved that that Power was hereditary and to be transferr'd to his Successor yet they neither have nor can have any just grounds to prove that the Bishop of Rome is that Successor and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say St. Peter first sate 4. That 't is certain from Scripture that Peter neither was nor could be as they pretend 25. years Bishop of Rome 5. Nor can it by Scripture appear that ever he was at Rome nor can Rome be meant by Babylon 1. Pet. 5. 13. 6. Nor can it appear by any just Testimonies of Antiquity that ever he was at Rome Papias is the ground and Author on whom they rely for that Fable and he an ignorant Person and Arch-Heretick 7. That to get credit to Papias they have impiously corrupted Eusebius 8. If it were granted that he was at Rome yet they have no ground or probability for it that he was Bishop there seeing there are far greater probabilities grounded on Scripture that Paul was Bishop there than Peter or any for him can pretend to and yet they do not say nor without contradiction to their own Principles can say that he was Bishop there 9. That those other honorary Titles or Epithites which their Authors every where use as proper to the Pope and marks of his Supremacy or at least superiority over all Bishops such as Apostolicus Pontifex Summus Papa Sedes Apostolica Vicarius Christi Cathedra Apostolica Successor Petri c. are impertinently made use of without any proof or probability p. 91. 92. c. VIII The seventh Observation concerning the Censures Punishments and Curses contain'd in this Bull and the Antichristian impiety of them 1. He miscalls the Queen an Heretick a favourer of Hereticks a Slave of Impiety and then Anathematizes her and cuts her off from the Unity of Christ's Body 2. He deposes and deprives her of her pretended Right to the Crown and of all manner of Dignity Dominion and Priviledge 3. He absolves her Subjects and all others who are bound to her by any Oath from all their Oaths and all debt of Fidelity and Obedience and that for ever 4. He severely prohibits them all to obey any of her Laws or Commands 5. If any of them do otherwise he Excommunicates and Curses them whether they be Papists or Protestants p. 145. 146. c. IX The eighth Observation That the Pope is the great Antichrist the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition spoken of 2. Thess. 3. 4. That the Opinions of H. Grotius that Caius Caligula and of Dr. Hammond that Simon Magus was Antichrist are inconsistent and contradictory to each other and to themselves That they are both of them repugnant to Scripture the Judgment of the primitive Fathers of Protestants and Papists and the sense of Christendom for about 1600. years after our blessed Saviour c. p. 151. 152. c. ad p. 199. X. The ninth Observation What the Popes Power is and whence they pretend to have it which inables them with Authority to sit Judges and pass damnatory Sentences against Supream Princes for Heresie 2. What that Heresie is and who the Hereticks who by the Pope are so severely damn'd 3. What those punishments are which they pretend they may and when and where they can actually do inflict on such Hereticks 4. Of the Waldenses that by the testimony of their Enemies 1. They had continued ever since the Apostles times 2. That there was scarce any Christian Country in which they were not 3. That they lived justly before men and believ'd all things well of God and all the Articles of the Creed but their fault was They said Rome was Babylon and the Pope Antichrist c. p. 199. 200. c. XI Observation the Tenth That Queen Elizabeth stood Excommunicate before the Damnatory Bull of Pius the Fifth and by whom c. p. 213. XII Observation the Eleventh Of the damnable and pernicious Doctrines and Conclusions which evidently follow upon their approv'd and practised Principles of Deposing and Anathematizing Kings and Supream Princes That 't is neither Treason Murder or any Sin for Subjects to Assassinate their King if he be Excommunicate by the Pope Nay that it is a meritorious Act for which they promise them vast rewards here and an higher degree of glory in Heaven hereafter c. p. 219. 220. c. XIII The Damnation and Excommunication of Henry the Eighth by Pope Paul the Third Decemb. 17. Anno 1538. FINIS a The reason why I cannot expect the favour or assent of my Adversaries especially of the Jesuites is because Maldonate tells us That Luther and Calvin Arch-Hereticks are not to be followed though they speak things consonant to Scripture Cum sacris literis consent ancadocent Non Sequendi Nay Calvinists and Lutherans Even When They Speak Truth are no more to be hearken'd to Then To the Devil Lutherani Calvinistae à Deo Ecclesia tanquam perniciosissimi Haeretici declarati non magis Etiam Cum Vera Dicunt Audiendi sunt Quam Diabolus Maldonat Comment in Matth. 16. vers 6. p. 336. C. Nor is this Maldonaâ—'s peculiar Opinion for the Censor Librorum who approves his Commentaries on Matthew tells us That Omnia in illis juxta Orthodoxam Apostolicae ac Romanae Ecclesiae Doctrinam Summa Cum Eruditione exponi Ita Joh. Clavius De villo Libr. Censor b Nullus dubitandâ— Locus quin Cultus Latriae qui Vero Deo debetur sic huic Sacramento exhibendus Concil Trid. Sess. 13. De Encharistâ cap. 5. c Matth. 26. 27. And they obey'd and did all drink Marc. 14. 23. d Cardinal Bona De Rebus Liturgicis l. 2. c. 18. pag. 491 492 Paris 1672. Lindanus Panopliae l. 4. c. 56. p. 342. Colon 1575. e Vid. Hieronym adversus Luciferianos in sine Tom. Operum 1. p. 230. Col. 2. G. f Cyprian Epist. 71. ad Quintum fratrem p. 140. in Editione Rigaltij Paris 1648. g Extant dictae Regulae Indici Tridentino praesixae in Calce Concilij Tridentini Antv. 1633. h Libri Vulgari Idiemate de Controverstis inter Catholicos Haereticos nostri temporis disserentes non passim permittantur sed de iis idem servetir quod de Bibliis Vulgari Linguâ scriptis Statutum est Ibidem Reg. 6. i Legentes aut habentes poenas in Sacris Canonibus Constitutionibus Apostolicis Indicibus Librorum prohibitorum contentas incurrere volumus Ita Bulla Creg 15. Data Rom. 30. Decemb.