was 25. years Bishop of Rome and actually transferred that Power to his Successor there or that our blessed Saviour ever had or exercis'd such a terrene and temporal power as they pretend the Pope as his Vicar has from him I say let them make all or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture and I will confess and retract my error Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal when I require Scripture proof For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right and this their Popes Canonists and Divines with great noise and confidence but no reason endeavour to prove from Scripture miserably mistaken and misapply'd I know that their late Jesuitical Methodists so much magnify'd by their Party require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory c. by express words of Scripture not admitting of Consequences however deduced from plain Texts as Premisses This method of theirs being irrational and demonstrated so to be I shall not tye them too But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture or by good Consequences deduced from it or what they pretend to Vniversal and Apostolical Tradition I shall admit the proof Nay I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further and if that be possible fairer offers 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever that any Christian Church in the World acknowledg'd or the Church of Rome her self assumed and publickly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy as now they pretend to for 1000. years after our B. Saviour and for my own part I will confess and retract my Error 2. Let them prove by any such concluding reason that any Church in the World Eastern or Western Greek or Latin did acknowledge what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for the Popes Infallibility and his Supremacy over all General Councils for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour and for my part Cedat Jülus Agris manus dabimus captivas I will retract what here I have affirmed and be what I hope I never shall be their Proselyte To Conclude I have no more to say my Adversaries will think I have said too much save only to desire the Readers who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction to read and consider the Margent as well as the Text. In this they have my Positions and the proofs of them in plain English In the Margent the Authorities and Authors I rely upon in their own words and the Language in which they writ and I have for the Readers ease not my own cited not only the Authors and their Books but the Chapter Paragraph Page and mostly the Editions of them That so the Reader may with more ease find the places quoted and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright It is notoriously known that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils many spurious Decretals and supposititious Tracts under the names of Primitive Fathers and ancient Bishops that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate Councils and thousands of other Authors making them by adding and substracting words or Sentences say what they never meant or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say and this they themselves have without shame or honesty publickly own'd in their Expurgatory Indices and after all this fraud and falsification of Records these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors are continually produced by them for proofs of their Errors against Protestants who well know and as many sober men of their own Communion justly condemn such impious Roman Arts Nec tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Christus eget Truth needs no such forg'd and false Medium's to maintain it nor will any honest man use them Sure I am I have not in this Discourse built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony nor of any supposititious or spurious ones The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted and rely upon are drawn from Scripture the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils or which ad hominem must be valid from their own Councils the Popes Bulls their Canon Law their Casuists Schoolmen Summists the Trent Catechism the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church their approved and received Publick Offices such as their Missal Breviary Ritual Pontifical c. which Authorities if I do not misquote or mistake their meaning are and to them must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them But let the Evidence of the Testimonies and the Authority of the Authors quoted be what it will I have little hope that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn firmly to believe their new Trent Creed the whole Body of Popish Errors to their last breath and to Anathematize and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it For while they are possess'd with these Principles it may be truly said of them what was said of the Luciferian Hereticks in St. Hierome Facilius cos Vinci posse quam persuaderi you may sooner bassle then perswade them They will in despite of Premisses hold the Conclusion nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholick Cause However that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth with a firm belief and in dangerous times upon undanted and pious profession of it is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England and her Adherents with an Addition of other Punishments Pius Bishop Servant to God's Servants for a perpetual memorial of the matter HE that reigneth on High to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth committed one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church out of which there is no Salvation to one alone upon Earth namely to Peter the Prince of the Apostles and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome to be governed in fulness of Power Him alone he made Prince over all People and all Kingdoms to pluck up destroy scatter consume plant and build that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit and present them spotless and umblameable to their Saviour Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church do spare no pains labouring with all earnestness that Unity and the Catholick Religion which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Children's
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
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
and Seditious Book to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists to joyn with the Spanish Forces against their Queen and Country under the Prince of Parma and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen with that Book and his own Bull into the Low-Countries and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe to be sent into England Were it necessary many things now might be said pertinent to this purpose but I suppose the Instances already given will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Impâ—â—tial Persons That Pope Pius V. was neither the first nor last who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors for above 600. years have owned approved and as they had opportunity put that Power in practise This in General premis'd I come now to consider the Bull of Pius V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth wherein two things occur very considerable 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it For the first the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus The Damnation of Elizabeth c. where though Damnation may seem a very hard word as indeed it is in the sense they use it as shall by and by appear yet it is not unusual but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus The Damnation Deposition of Friderick II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry VIII the Title prefix'd to it is The Damnation of Henry VIII and his Favourers c. So that Pius V. Damning Queen Elizabeth was not singular though Impious he had some of his Predecessors Forms to follow I say his Predecessors for I do not find that any Bishops in the World save those of Rome ever used such Unchristian and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors And it is observable and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant of which there is a vast number that the Popes of later Ages when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power they usually cite the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors who had done the like not for matter of fact barely but to prove a Right that because their Predecessors had done so formerly therefore they who succeeded in the same Power might do it too Now although to Argue thus à Facto ad Jus be evidently inconsequent and irrational no better than this Peter de facto deny'd and forswore his Master Ergo His Successors de jure may do so to Yet if their Principles were true as I suppose they may think them such Arguing would be more concluding For Pope Leo. X. expresly affirms and publickly declares in one of their General Councils that it is more clear than light it self That None of his Predecessors Popes of Rome Did ever Err in any of their Canons or Constitutions Now if this were true as it is evidently false and his Asserting it an Argument not only of his Fallibility but of his great Error and Folly That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd then they might with more Security follow them for certainly it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide Especially if it be true which they tell us For 1. In their Laws and Canons approved by their Supream Authority and retained in publick use in their Church we are told That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them This as Gratian there tells us was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence is Received into the Body of their Canon Law Revised Corrected and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity So Gregory XIII says and confirms it Whence it evidently follows that in Pope Gregory's Judgment This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity And in the same place it is farther declared for Law Pope Stephen I. is cited as Author of that Sentence That Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute it is without all Contradiction perpetually to be Observed 2. Though this be beyond all truth and reason highly erroneous yet the Jesuits of late have gone much higher and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris publickly maintain'd these two Positions 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors the same Infallibility he himself had so oft as they spoke è Cathedra 2. That even out of a General Council He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith both in Questions of Right and Fact This as to the main of it though Erroneous and Impious is maintain'd by others as well as Jesuits F. Gregory de Rives a Capuchin Priest tells us and his Book is approved by the General and several others of his Order and by Father D. Roquet a Dominican and Doctor of Divinity c. That as the Authority of Christ our blessed Saviour if he were now on Earth were greater than all Councils so by the Same Reason the Authority of the Pope who is Christ's Vicar is greater than all Councils too That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope not to Councils and then Concludes That the Church of Rome he means the Pope is Judge of Controversies and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide Thus De Rives And three or four years before him Lud. Bail a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary expresly affirms That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word in Scripture 2. His unwritten Word in the Traditions of the Church 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd and their meaning determin'd by the Pope whether in or out of Councils and this he says is the most approved way in which men acquiesce and think they need look no further And hence he Infers That seeing this is so we ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners but acquiesce in his Judgment and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities to prove the aforesaid Particulars That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors especially if they be Hereticks and think they have as Christ's Vicars a just Prerogative and Power to do it Sure I am that these Positions though Erroneous and Impious are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits Canonists Schoolmen and their Followers which are very many receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best and as they themselves say their most Correct Editions and approved and when they had opportunity practis'd by their Supream Powers their Popes and General Councils I
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
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
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
had A Great Appearance of Piety because they Lived Justly Before Men Believ'd All Things well of God and All the Articles of the Creed The Twelve Articles of their New Trent Creed were neither then believ'd nor known no not at Rome Well if all this be true and it is their Enemy who gives them this ample Testimony what was it that made this Sect of all others the most pernicious to the Church of Rome Certainly the Antiquity or generality of this Sect the Piety of their Lives their believing all things well of God and all the Articles of the Creed none of these could be â—ernicious to any Truth or any True Church What was it then Why he tells us in the next words that it was only this They Blasphemed or spake ill of the Church and Clergy of Rome And as he Confesses The Multitude of the Laity easily believed them which is an evident Argument that it was neither incredible nor altogether improbable which the Multitude of the Laiety so easily believed Two things indeed those poor persecuted Waldenses said which were very true and most pernicious to the Church of Rome for nothing is more pernicious to darkness and error then light and truth 1. They said That the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation 2. That the Pope was the Head of all the Errors in that Antichristian Church And on this Account it was that the Church of Rome did call those poor Waldenses Hereticks and as such did with Fire and Sword and the utmost Cruelty persecute them For as is aforesaid he is an Heretick at Rome who contradicts or disbelieves the Canons and Constitutions of that Church although he do not really disbelieve any Divine Truth contain'd in the Canon of Scripture Now as it was with the poor Waldenses so we are sure it has been is and will be with all Protestants Princes and People Supream or Subjects they are at Rome declared Hereticks and liable to all the Punishments of that which they are pleas'd to call Heresie and when they have opportunity and ability those Punishments will certainly be Inflicted without any Pity or Mercy And this brings me to the third Inquiry What those Punishments are And here because the Punishments of Heresie are very many and very great it is neither my present business nor purpose particularly to set them all down and explain them Only I shall in favour to the Ordinary Reader for to the Learned they are better known name some Authors where he may find a Distinct and full Explication of the Nature of Heresie according to the Popish Principles and the Number of its Punishments And here 1. The Gloss of their Canon Law reduces the Punishments of Hereticks to Four Heads in the General Hereticks says the Glossator are to be punished either 1. By Excommunication 2. Deposition 3. Loss of all their Goods 4. By Military Persecution that is by Fire and Sword by War and armed Souldiers This is approved by several of their Learned Writers 2. For the Body of the Canon Law to pass by Gratian and his Decretum those who have a mind and leasure may consult the Titles De Haereticis which occur in the Decretals of Greg. 9. of Bonis 8. in the Clementines Extravagantes Communes and in the lately added Seaventh Book of the Decretals with the Glosses and Panormitan's large Comment upon them 3. For the Punishment of Hereticks by the Civil Laws they who have a mind to know may consult Justinians Code Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis with the Gloss there And especially the Theodosian Code Lib. 16. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis Samaritanis with the Larger and most Learned Notes of Jacobus Gothofredus in the Edition of the Codex Theodosianus at Lions 1665. Tom. 6. pag. 104. To these may be added the Severe Laws of the Emperor Friderick the Second made in pursuance of the Lateran Council and though he had little reason for it to gratifie the Pope in his barbarous designs to ruin all those he call'd generally miscall'd Hereticks which Laws as we may be sure they would the Pope and his Party did highly approve And have referr'd them into the Body of their Canon Law 7. Decretalium Lib. 5. Tit. 3. Capp 1. 2. In Edit Corporis Juris Can. Lugduni Anno 1661. 4. And for a full and particular Explication of those Laws and the Quality of the Punishments of Hereticks Inflicted by them their Casuists and Canonists may be consulted Amongst many others such as these Filliucius Durantus Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus Azorius Paul Layman Raynerius Johan de Turrecremata Cardinal Hostiensis and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Terraconensis a most Learned Canonist and a very useful Book has given us a Catalogue of their Canons De poenis quae sunt Hoereticis Constitutae In short whoever has a mind opportunity and ability to Consult the aforemention'd Authors or such others may easily find the Number and Nature of those Punishments which by their Impious Papal Canons and Constitutions are to be Inflicted on those better Christians then themselves they are pleased to call Hereticks 10. Concerning this Impious Bull containing the Damnation as he calls it and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth by Pope Pius the Fifth it is further to be observed That it is no new thing For Queen Elizabeth was actually Excommunicate before 1. In their famous Bulla Coenae Domini take famous in which sense you will the worst is good enough wherein they do at Rome Anathematize and Curse all Protestants both Kings and Subjects Princes and Common People It is called Bulla Coenae Domini because it is published every year on Maundy Thursday the Day in which our blessed Saviour Instituted Coenam Domini the Sacrament of his last Supper And here by the way we may observe the difference between Christ and his pretended Vicar Antichrist 1. On that Day our blessed Saviour Institutes that Sacrament as a blessing and seal of the mutual Love between him and his Church and of the Communion and Charity of Christians amongst themselves but the Pope far otherwise and unlike him whose Vicar he pretends to be on the very same Day without and against Christian Charity Anathematizes and Curses the greatest part of Christians 2. Our blessed Saviour was that Day ready to Dye for the Salvation of Sinners but his pretended Vicar is ready on the same Day and so far as he is able does actually Damn the greatest part of the Christian World and has been drunk with the blood of the Saints 3. Nor did Queen Elizabeth stand Accursed before Pius the Fifth's Excommunication of her only in that Bulla Coenae but in several other Papal Bulls I shall only name one and because it is of signal Consequence and to our present