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
trust and diligently examin Things till we be assured of truth yet his pretended Vicar with an Antichristian Pride and Impiety Contradicts this and Commands the contrary He forbids all Examination Those under his Tyranny at least the unlearned and Common people must believe as the Church believes that is all that he proposeth though it be Transubstantiation or any thing evidently repugnant to their Reason and Senses too They must renounce their own Reason and if he say that is white which they see black they are to believe what he says and not their own Senses All means for the People to examin whether it be truth or error which the Pope and his Church proposes is prohibited and deny'd them nor is it only the Books of Protestants which write of Religion but the Bible and Sacred Scripture too even the whole Law of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any vulgar Language which the People can understand come amongst prohibited Books and damn'd at Rome and the reason they give of such prohibition is impious and blasphemous For they say horresco referens the reading of the Holy Scripture by the People in any vulgar Tongue is more pernicious then profitable and brings more loss then benefit to the Reader Although this Doctrine be as I said impious and against God and his Holy Word blasphemous yet it is publickly own'd amongst those Rules for prohibited Books contrived by a Deputation or Committee of the Trent Fathers according to the Decree of that Council and afterwards approved and confirmed by Pius the Fourth Sixtus the Fifth and Clemens the Eighth as the Title of the Trent Index assures us After them that we may be sure they continue their Antichristian Tyranny to prohibit and damne the Bible and all Books which make against them Gregory the Fifteenth and Urban the Eighth do further approve and confirm the Impious Rules and Doctrine afore-mention'd and both of them expresly declare and in the same words 1. That it is known that the Reading prohibited Books the Bible is one of them brings great detriment to the Professors of the sincere Faith Roman Errors and Popery they mean which they miscall sincere Faith And what they say is most certain for there is no Book under Heaven so destructive of their Popish Superstition and Idolatry which they call sincere Faith as the Bible as it has been truly explain'd and preached by Protestants since Luther ' s time Which is evident in this that so many Kingdoms and Provinces by the help of Scriptures and Knowledge of the Gospel have clearly seen the Errors of Rome and justly abhorring her and them are come out of Babylon 2. All Licences to read any prohibited Books whosoever gave them to whomsoever they were given they recall cassate and declare null 3. Then they Command under severest punishments that all those who have any prohibited Books the Bible is one if it be in any Vulgar Tongue they are to bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor and they are presently to Burn them 4. And then they declare That no man shall have any Licence for the future to read or have any prohibited Book no Bible or Protestant Book concerning Religion in any Vulgar Tongue save only from the Congregation of the Sacred Office the supream Office of the Inquisitors which sits every week before the Pope at Rome By the Premisses I think 't is certain that these Papers of mine are in Antecessum and already prohibited and damn'd at Rome and if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obeyed not to be read or had by any Papist save only such as have a faculty and licence from the Congregation of the Sacred Office as they call it the Roman Inquisitors and we may be sure that those watchful Fathers who guard the Capitol and industriously study to preserve and promote the Papal Greatness and Interest on which their own depends will give licence to none to read such Protestant Writings save to those who for fidelity to their Catholick Cause and Learning they judge able and willing to Answer and Confute them That is None shall have Licence to read such to them dangerous and damned Books save such as have solemnly Promised Vow'd and Sworn firmly to believe and constantly to hold and profess to their last breath and to the utmost of their Power indeavour that others under them do so too their new Trent-Creed and so the whole Mass of their Popish Errors and Idolatries contained and commanded in it The Case being evidently this that if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obey'd none are to read or have these Papers save such as have promised vow'd and sworn never to believe them as I have little reason to desire or hope for their favour so be it known unto them I do as little fear their Confutation or what I am like enough to have their Calumnies 4. Although I well know to say nothing of others that all our English Papists both in their Words and Writings do constantly call themselves Catholicks and Roman Catholicks yet they must pardon me if in these Papers I neither do nor justly can call them so Papists I do call them and I hope they will not be offended or take it ill that I do so For Baronius their great Cardinal and Annalist having said That the Hereticks we know whom he means call'd them Papists he adds That we could not honour them with a more glorious Title then that of Papists and therefore he desires that they may have the honour of that Title while they live and that after death it may be writ upon their Tombs and Sepulchral Monuments For my part so long as they believe and profess their new Trent-Creed and the Popes Monarchical Supremacy I shall according to the Cardinal's desire call them Papists and if it be so honourable a Title as he saies it is let them have it I shall not envy them that honour but pity their error who glory in that which is indeed their sin and shame For the other Title of Catholick which our Adversaries without and against reason appropriate to themselves we grant and know that anciently it was and when rightly used is a word of a good sound signification when it was applied to persons as a Catholick Bishop or Catholick Doctor c. it signified such persons as were 1. In respect of their Faith Orthodox who intirely believed and profess'd the true Christian Faith rejecting all pernicious and dangerous errors and so were no Hereticks 2. In respect of their Charity such as were in Communion with the Church of Christ without any uncharitable Separation from it and so no Schismaticks Now that our Adversaries of Rome are as they pretend such Catholicks is absolutely deny'd not only by Protestants but except themselves by all Christians in the World and that upon evident and great reason Considering
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
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
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
Brutum Fulmen OR THE BULL OF Pope Pius V. Concerning the Damnation Excommunication and Deposition OF Q. ELIZABETH As also the Absolution of her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance with a Peremptory Injunction upon Pain of an Anathema never to obey any of Her Laws or Commands With some Observations and Animadversions upon it By THOMAS Lord Bishop of Lincoln Whereunto is Annex'd the Bull of Pope Paul the Third containing the Damnation Excommunication c. of King Henry the Eighth Come out of her my People that ye partake not of her Sins and Plagues Rev. XVIII 4. LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXI The Right Hon. ble Algernon Capell Earl of Essex Viscount Maldon and Baron Capell of Hadham 〈◊〉 THE EIPSTLE TO THE READER Reader WHoever thou art Protestant or Papist Courteous or Censorious having made these Papers publick thou hast a liberty to read and a right to judge and that thou maist do it impartially not out of hate or kindness to me but upon a serious and just Consideration of the Cause I shall neither importune thy Favour nor deprecate when 't is just thy severest Censure For 1. 'T is truth I have impartially desired and not indiligently sought and if by the blessing of God I have found it Magna est veritas praevalebit it will prevail in despite of all Enemies and Opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nat super non immersabilis undis Truth we know especially Divine Truth which concerns our Souls and their salvation ever had and so long as there are Devils and wicked Men will have in this World many Enemies who will indeavour what they cannot do to suppress it premi potest veritas opprimi non potest They may dipp and for some time keep it under water but they cannot drown it If these Papers contain truth as I hope they do then I am sure that every Intelligent Reader and pious lover of Truth will be its Patron and though in this Epistle I do not sollicit him ready to vindicate it from the Objections of its Adversaries But on the other side if my Reader relate to Rome and be possess'd with strong delusion to believe against Reason and Divine Revelation his Catholick Cause the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility it will be in vain for me in this Epistle to desire what I believe I cannot have his Favour However he shall have my Pity and Prayers That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to open his Eyes and bless him with the Knowledge and Love of the Truth 2. We know 't is true what the great Roman Orator long since said Humanum est errare labi decipi c. The wisest men have their mistakes Bernardus non videt Omnia quandóque bonus dormitat Homerus Since Adam fell the best men have their Infirmities and sometimes erre even when they desire and seek Truth Since the Prophets our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left the world I know no man Infallible nor any save the Pope who against evident Reason and the sense of Christendom pretends to it For my own part I do humbly acknowledge my many and great Infirmities and for these Papers Hominem pagina nostra sapit there may be mistakes and errors in them yet it is my hope and not ungrounded belief that there are none such as may prove pernicious or in the main dangerous Non hic Centauros non Gorgonas Harpyasve invenies No such prodigious and pernicious errors as our Popish Adversaries maintain so far as they are able vindicate such I mean as their stupid Doctrine of Transubstantiation contradictory to Natural Reason Divine Revelation and all our Senses their Idolatrous Adoration of a piece of Bread with Divine Worship due to God only their Sacrilegious robbing the Laity of half the Sacrament in the Eucharist contrary to our blessed Saviour's express Command and the practise of the Christian World even of the Church of Rome her self for above a thousand years as their own great and learned Writers confess c. I say such errors as these I do and have reason to believe the Reader will not find in these Papers Though it be certain and confess'd that every one even the best and most learned Writers are fallible yet so long as they rationally build their Conclusions upon the clear Principles of Nature Scripture or Vniversal Tradition They may be sure enough and so may their Reader too that they are not actually false nor what they so write erroneous However if the Reader find any errors of what nature soever and can make it appear that they are indeed errors I shall not as I said before deprecate his severest Censure but concur with him and Censure them my self as much as he and do hereby promise publickly to retract them and heartily thank him for the discovery For in this Case my Reader and I shall both be Gainers and in a several way Conquerors Vicimus utérque nostrum palmam Tu refers mei Ego Erroris my Reader has overcome me by manifesting my mistakes and I by his help have overcome those errors otherwise in Cyprian's opinion and language Non vincimur cum offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur He who by his Adversaries help and concluding Arguments gains the knowledge of Truth is in that good Father's opinion not conquered but instructed But if the Intelligent Reader discover any error in these Papers and can and will really make it appear to be so let him call it what he will Victory or Instruction I shall thankfully submit and both love that truth and him for the discovery of it 3. I know that this Tract of mine as every one of the like nature is already prohibited and damned at Rome for the Rules presix'd to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum contrived by the Authority of the Trent Council declare all Books of Controversies between Catholicks and Hereticks Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited and damned neither to be had nor read by any Papist under pain of Excommunication and many other Penalties contained in their Canons Papal Constitutions and their Expurgatory Indices So that although our blessed Saviour by his holy Spirit in the Gospel Command all even the Common people for to those he writes to Examin and try all things to use that understanding and discretion God has given us to distinguish truth from error for that 's evidently the meaning of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things as scher and learned Papists confess and when we have done so then we must hold fast that which is good I say in this Case in the choice of our Religion wherein the Eternal weal or woe of our Souls is concerned though Christian prudence require it and our blessed Saviour by his Apostle Command that we should not believe every Spirit but try before we
in his Prophecy and was several times Imprison'd and cast into Dungeons with great danger of his Life at Jerusalem and when carried Captive into Egypt by some Rebellious Jews who would not obey the Word of God by him he was more miserably used and at last by them murder'd and martyr'd So far was Jeremy after God had given him that Commission from pulling down or destroying any man that on the contrary he patiently submitted to his Superiors and was by them though most injustly punished pull'd down and at last destroy'd 2. But the meaning of that Text evidently is I have set thee o-over Nations and Kingdoms to pull down destroy and dissipate c. Per modum Prophetantis Quid Judicio Justo facturus esset Deus praedicentis As a Prophet to foretell what God would do that unless they repented he would pull down destroy and dissipate those Nations and Kingdoms against which by God's express Command he Prophesied Jeremy had no Commission no Power or Authority to pull down or destroy any one single Person much less Kings and Emperors nor did he ever do or attempt any such thing he only Prophetied and premonish'd them from God that Destruction would come upon them for their sins but it was God only who could and did execute that Sentence and when they repented not destroyed them So in Scripture the Prophet is said to do that which he foretells will be done Joseph in Prison tells Pharaoh's Butler and Baker That within three days the one should be restored to his Place and the other hanged This coming to pass not by any Power of Joseph for he was a Prisoner yet the Text says That He restored the one and that He hang'd the other And this those Popes who so often urge this Text of Jeremy might have easily and certainly known had they studied Scripture and Divinity as much as Human Policy as too many of them do not For what I have said is expresly said in the very Text of Jeremy's Prophetie as he who compares and considers two or three Chapters in it may evidently see Sure I am to say nothing of the Fathers and Ancient Writers of the Church what I have said of the true meaning of this place in Jeremy is acknowledg'd even by the Jesuits and Canonists the greatest Flatterers of the Pope and Sticklers for his pretended Supremacy who Expound the Text as I have done I shall instance in One or Two 1. Corn A. Lapide a Noted and Learned Jesuit Expounding this Place of Jeremy says thus I have set thee over the Nations that thou should pull up That is saith he that thou shouldst Threaten my Enemies that unless they repent I will pull them out of the Countries where I have placed them And then he tells us truly that this is the Opinion of Hierome Theodoret Rabanus Vatablus Lyranus Dion-Carthusianus and others And then he adds That it is God not Jeremy who Pulls up and Plants the Nations So that when 't is said I have set thee To pull up and plant the Nations it is all one as◠if he had said I have set thee to Threaten and Preach that God would Pull up and Plant those Nations This is that we say and prove to be th◠meaning of that Text in Jeremy and the Jesuit fully Consents and Acknowledges it to be true 2. Pope Innocent III. in his Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople amongst several other places of Scripture brings this Text of Jeremy to prove the Priest especially Peter's Successor the Pope to be Superior to all Kings and yet Bernardus de Botono the Author of the Gloss there when he comes to Explain that Text I have set thee over the Nations to pull up and plant he has nothing of Deposing and setting up Kings but Conceives the meaning to be That Jeremy was set over Nations To pull up Vices and plant Virtues He truly Conceives that Jeremy was not Constituted a Prince with Dominion and Jurisdiction over Kings and Emperors to set them up or pull them down at his pleasure to which purpose many of the Popes produce it but a Prophet to foretell them what God would do That is He would plant them if they were Penitent if not pull down and destroy them So the Author of the Gloss and they tell us that he writ most Learned Glosses upon the Decretals of Gregory IX which afterwards had the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII Be it concluded then that Pius V. and those other Popes before mention'd notwithstanding their Infallibility have miserably mistaken the true meaning of this place of Jeremy And indeed he who reads and seriously Considers the several Places of Scripture which the Popes of the last 600. years have explained in their Bulls and Decretals and produc'd as proofs of their extravagant usurp'd Supremacy I say he will have just reason to believe that Popes are not the best Expositors of Scripture For Instance to omit others I shall refer the Reader to those 8. or 9. Places which Pope Innoc. III. and Bonif. VIII have Cited and Explain'd in two of their Constitutions both Extant in their Canon Law in the places before Cited where the Expositions and Applications of those places by those Popes are not only evidently Erroneous but being repugnant to all good Sense and Reason exceedingly ridiculous such as may give their Adversaries reason to believe that the Authors of such wild Interpretations are rather Fools than Infallible 5. Pope Pius V. here in the beginning of this his Bull calls Peter as other Popes and their Parasites usually do Prince of the Apostles and tells us that our blessed Saviour did set and constitute him a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms From whence they Illogically and without any shadow of Just Consequence would Conclude Peter's Supremacy his Dominion and Authority even over all the Apostles For although Peter in the Gospel when the Names of the Twelve Apostles are numbred is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primus and amongst Latin Authors anciently Princeps Apostolorum The Prince of the Apostles yet that Papal Supremacy which the Popes and their Party generally attribute to him that they as his Successors might have it themselves cannot thence be concluded So Erasmus tells us out of St. Hierome That the Apostles in the other Evangelists are not reckon'd in the Order they are in Matthew lest any man should think that Peter were first of all the Apostles because he is reckon'd in the first Place Matthew reckons Thomas before himself but Mark after him Matthew reckons Andrew before James and John but Mark after them So St. Paul reckons James before Peter and John though Matthew puts Peter first And Erasmus there says further that Hierome intimates That the Apostles were all as to their Apostolick Office Equal That which makes me believe
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
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
Whether the Pope be Antichrist many have with great success already done it I shall only in short give the Reader two or three Arguments or Motives which at present induce me to believe that the Pope is Antichrist And those Motives either grounded on Scripture the Confessions of our Adversaries the Testimonies of many and great men before or the concurrent Consent of the Reformed Churches since Luther Here consider 1. That it is not only Confess'd by our Adversaries in their Commentaries on 1. Pet. 5. 13. The Church of Babylon salutes you but indeavour'd to be proved by many Arguments they bring That Rome is that Babylon St. John speaks of in the Revelation which he calls the Great Whore Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth and in more plain Terms The Great City which reigns over the Kings of the Earth which cannot possibly be meant of any but Rome that being then the only great City which Reigned over the Kings of the Earth I know that some of them would have Pagan Rome meant but this evidently untrue for 1. It must be Apostatical Rome as indeed it is for the Apostle expresly tells us That Antichrist will not come till an Apostasie and falling from the Faith come first which cannot be meant of Pagan Rome it being impossible they should fall from the Faith who never had any 2. It is meant of that Babylon or Rome which St. John calls the Great Whore and Harlot but in Scripture none but Apostates from the Faith and true Religion are call'd so none but she who was once a Wife and afterwards falls into Spiritual Whoredom which of Pagan Rome neither is nor can be true 3. The Actings of Antichrist are call'd Mysterium a Mystery things hard to be understood but that Pagan Idolaters should persecute and oppress Christians and be drunk with the Blood of the Saints this is no Mystery But that all this should be done in pretence of the only True and Catholick Religion in Honour of Christ and by his Vicar this is indeed a Mystery not easily understood So that it is evident and confess'd that Rome is Babylon Mystical Babylon call'd so as she is call'd Sodom and Egypt in respect of that Analogy and Similitude between the Literal and Mystical the Pagan and Antichristian Babylon Babylon Chaldaeae Italiae Some of the Particulars wherein that Similitude consists are here in the Margent and he who considers what St. John says of the Mystical and what Isaie and Jeremy of the Literal Babylon may find more I take it then for a manifest Truth and confess'd by our Adversaries that by Babylon in the Revelation Rome is meant and that it is the Seat of Antichrist The next Query will be Who that great Antichrist is whose Seat is to be at Rome And this will best appear by the Description and Characters of him in Scripture 2. One Characteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist is given by St. Paul That he is an Enemy an Adversary to Christ our blessed Saviour so the word in St. Paul properly signifies so their Authentick Vulgar Latin translates it and their Learned Commentators prove it So that we are agreed on this That Antichrist whoever he be is an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and though he may pretend as we know he does to be Christ's Vicar and Act by his Authority and for him yet he is really his Adversary and acts in Opposition and Contradiction to him Now if this be a true Character of Antichrist and it is St. Pauls then the Pope has a fairer Plea to be that Beast then any man in the World For under the Name and Notion of Christ's Vicar and by a vainly pretended and usurped Power from him he acts contrary to Christ and the express Commands of the Gospel I shall of many give two or three Instances 1. Our blessed Saviour at the Institution of the Eucharist expresly Commands his Disciples and so all Christians who are of Age and rightly qualify'd Drink Ye All of this And another Evangelist tells us that they obey'd and Did All Drink But the Pope in Contradiction to this absolutely forbids all save the Priest who Consecrates to drink the Eucharistical Cup and so in Contradiction to our Saviour's Command deprives them of half that Sacrament And this they do with a blasphemous Impiety forbidding bidding all Laicks to have the Communion in both kinds Notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and notwithstanding that in the Primitive Church it was Received in both kinds and they further declare them Hereticks who think otherwise and Command that no Priest shall administer it in both kinds to any Lay-man under pain of Excommunication By the way it is observable That it is Confess'd by our Adversaries Lindanus Cardinal Bona c. that the whole Church of God Lay and Clergy for about One thousand two hundred years Received in both kinds even the Church of Rome her self And after that in Aquinas his time it was but in some Churches that the Cup was deny'd to the Laity The sum is this He who acts in Opposition and Contradiction to our blessed Saviour's Commands in the Gospel abrogates them so much as in him lies calls them Hereticks and Excommunicates those who obey them and Incourages those who disobey Christ and obey him he I say is an Adversary to Christ and Antichrist But by the Premisses it appears that the Pope does all this more signally in taking away the Cup in the Eucharist then any who pretends to be a Christian in the whole World Ergo he is Antichrist 2. The next Instance whereby it may appear that the Pope is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and so has one Character of Antichrist is this St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians tells them and he says they are the Commandments of Christ he writes 1. That it is the Commandment of our blessed Saviour that in their Assemblies all things be done to Edification 2. That speaking in an unknown Tongue does not Edify or Profit the Church to which he speaks because they understand not what he says 3. He absolutely forbids all speaking in their Assemblies if there be none to Interpret in any unknown Tongue Now whether the Pope be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary to Christ let the Reader Judge by that which follows Our blessed Saviour expresly Commands that in the Assemblies of Christians all things should be in a Tongue understood by the People for their Edification and the Apostle thinks it madness to do otherwise that they might know his Precepts and gracious Promises and so their Duty and Incouragements to do it But the Pope as all know in Contradiction to this absolutely forbids what our blessed Saviour expresly Commands and prohibits all Publick Prayers
Arethas Ado Viennensis and many more constantly say That John was banish'd into Patmos not by Claudius but by Domitian and writ his Revelation there 3. But I shall not go about any further proof of this For Dr. Hammond has saved me the Labour and confess'd it For it is certain from the Text that Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ the Revelation John himself telling us so Thou hast not deny'd my faith when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you So that 't is Evident Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ his Revelation Now Antipas suffer'd and was slain by Domitian in the Second Persecution of the Christians which was Anno Domitiani 10. Christi 92. So the Old Roman Martyrology and Baronius assures us and Dr. Hammond confesses it That Antipas suffer'd Martyrdom under Domitian Whence it evidently follows That St. John speaking of Antipas his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ his Revelation and that in Domitian's time he could not write it in Claudius his time who was dead eight or nine and twenty years before Domitian came to the Empire So that Antipas being put to death in Domitian's time as Dr. Hammond affirms and St. John in the Revelation mentioning his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ 't is Evident that he writ that Book after the death of Antipas and so in or after Domitian's time and not in the time of Claudius 6. St. John in his first Epistle speaks of Antichrist as then to come when he writ that Epistle It is the last time saith he and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come even now there are many Antichrists c. Here two things I conceive are Evident 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc when St. John writ this Epistle there were many Antichrists that is many false Prophets and Hereticks forerunners of Antichrist who made way for him 2. And that the great Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to come when St. John writ This Oecumenius Bede Estius and generally all Commentators Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist which I have yet met with constantly affirm 'T is true that when St. John says afterward that Antichrist was Now in the World already they truly Explain it that the meaning is That he is now in the World Not personally but in respect to his Forerunners false Prophets and Hereticks who make way for him I take it then for a certain truth that when St. John writ this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antichrist or as Venerable Bede calls him Maximus ille Antichristus was future and to come And which is something strange Grotius confirms what I have said which makes much for mine but little for his purpose For 1. He grants that this Text 1. Joh. 2. 18. speaks of Antichrist as future and to come For though the word here and cap. 4. vers 3. be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present Tense yet Grotius confesses that it must be taken in the future Veniet Antichristus Antichrist will come 2. He says that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of there shall be one more Eminent which he says was Barcochebas who appeared not he says till the Emperor Adrian ' s time which was long after St. John writ this Epistle And he further says in Confirmation of what is aforesaid That the false Christs Hereticks and false Prophets which John calls Antichrists do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist I take it then for certain and confess'd by Grotius that the great Antichrist was not come when St. John writ this Epistle The next thing to be inquired after is When this Epistle was writ for if it was writ after Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead then it will be undeniably Evident that neither of them could be that great Antichrist of whom St. John speaks who when he writ this Epistle was future and to come Now here it is to be considered 1. That 't is a common and received Opinion amongst Learned men that St. John writ this Epistle Anno Christ. 99. or at least after the death of Domitian which was Anno Christ. 95. So Baronius Gavantus Lyranus in the places cited and many others Now if this Computation be true as in the Opinion of very many Learned men it is then Grotius his Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seaven and fifty years before John writ this Epistle and therefore seaven and fifty years before Antichrist came for St. John says he was future and to come when he writ And for Simon Magus Dr. Hammond's Antichrist it is certain he died Anno Christi 68. and so One and thirty years before Antichrist was come 2. But be this as it will I shall not though I might stand upon it but take the Computation which both Grotius and Dr. Hammond approve for they both agree in this that St. John writ this Epistle a little before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the places cited indeavour to prove it 2. This being granted it is further certain that the Excidium Hierosolymorum was in the second year of Vespasian that is Anno Christ. 72. That this is so Josephus Eusebius Jac. Vsserius Armachanus Baronius c. assure us 3. And hence it evidently follows That both Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead before the year 72. when Antichrist as St. John assures us was not come Caligula being dead thirty and Simon Magus four years before that time By the Premisses I believe it may and does appear that in Scripture Antichrist the great Antichrist is never spoken of but as future and to come and therefore it is impossible by Scripture and there is no other Medium can do it to prove that Antichrist was come in any part of that time in which Scripture was writ 2. And as the Apostles believed and writ that in their times even in St. John's who lived longest Antichrist was not come So the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers after them for about a thousand years generally if not universally speak of Antichrist as still future and in their several times to come I know that some anciently and wildly thought that Nero was Antichrist and as much might be said for him as Grotius has said for Caligula but they said that he was to rise again and come Sub Seculi Finem and Act as Antichrist But I never yet read or heard of any besides the Learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond who in Sixteen hundred years after our blessed Saviour ever seriously affirm'd that Caligula or Simon Magus was Antichrist The two Learned Persons before mention'd are the first and they Contradict each other themselves the received Opinion of the Christian World and gratifie Rome whilst they indeavour which neither they nor any