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
then found Peter there According to our Adversaries Computation in the year 51. Peter had sate Bishop in Rome about eight years and yet St. Paul neither found nor sought him at Rome where he was not but at Jerusalem where he was with the Jews who were Committed to his Charge and Cure 6. Lastly 'T is Evident St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews of which Babylon was the Metropolis And sure it is that when he says The Church of Babylon salutes you he intended as all men do who write Epistles of that Nature that they should know where he was and who they were who saluted them which was Impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome For at that time Rome neither was nor could be known to any by the name of Babylon no Author Sacred or Civil having ever call'd it so 'T is true St. John above Fifty years after callâ— Rome Babylon But he writing Mysterious Propheties spoke to use Eusebius's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used many Types Figures and Metaphors to express future things But that Peter 〈◊〉 writ no such Mysterious Prophetical Predictâ—ons but the plain Duties and Promises of thâ— Gospel should use such Types or Figures haâ—â— neither truth nor any probability By the Premisses I hope it may appear that it cannot be proved out of Scripture that ever Peter was at Rome 4. But let it be granted that it could be proved out of Scripture which is manifestly untrue that Peter was at Rome yet thence it will not follow that ever he was Bishop there much less for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended For 1. That he was Bishop of Rome or any place else there is not one syllable in Scripture and so from thence there can be no proof of his Roman Bishoprick And 2. If it be granted which is evidently untrue that it could out of Scripture be clearly proved that he was at Rome a longer time yet hence it does not follow that he was Bishop there For he was at Jerusalem Samaria Joppa c. as is evident in Scripture and yet our Adversaries neither do nor with any sense or reason can say that he was Bishop of all those places 3. Irenaeus an ancient and an approved Author expresly says That Peter and Paul Constituted Linus first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens after the Apostles was the third Bishop there After him Eusebius says the same thing That after the Martyrdom of Paul and Peter Linus was the first Bishop of Rome And again speaking of the Bishops of Rome he says That Linus was the first and Anencletus or Anacletus as he is usually call'd the second And though Eusebius say That Linus was Primus post Petrum the first Bishop of Rome after Peter yet his meaning is not that Peter was Bishop of Rome before him as is evident by what he says afterwards That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles Paul and Peter and by what Irenaeus said before him That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles For if this be good consequence Linus was first Bishop of Rome after Peter Ergo Peter was Bishop Rome too Then this in Irenaeus and Eusebius who both say it will be good Consequence also Clemens was third Bishop of Rome after Paul and Peter Ergo Paul and Peter were both Bishops of Rome The truth is that neither Consequence is good Irenaeus and Eusebius did indeed believe Paul and Peter Founders of the Roman Church but neither of them to be Bishops there which a Learned Roman Catholick evidently saw and publickly acknowledges By the way let me observe That Eusebius in two places here cited puts Paul before Peter and not only Eusebius a fallible Author but St. Paul himself puts James before Peter Now if Eusebius or St. Paul had known and believ'd St. Peter to have been what the Pope and his Party without any ground vainly Imagine the Supream Monarcâ— over the whole Church and the Apostles themselves it had been a great Affront and Injury to St. Peter and such an Incivility as St. Paul would not have been guilty of 4. And 't is yet more Considerable what St. Paul says in the place last cited For there we have these things certain in the Text 1. That Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision the Jews were Committed to him as his Charge and Cure as the Gentiles to Paul 2. It was our blessed Saviour who Commission'd both of them and appointed them those Provinces for none else could He only could assign them their Provinces who gave them the Apostolical Power to govern them Peter as our Adversaries say was Supream Monarch of the whole Church had no Superior but our blessed Saviour and so none else to Commission him or Appoint him his Province 3. Both of them till that time had diligently and with great Success effectually labour'd in their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles 4. By a mutual Agreement they consent and promise That Peter as he had before so for the future He should go to the Jews and make them his Charge and Cure and Paul to the Gentiles 5. And this Agreement was about the year of our Lord. 51. when according to our Adversaries Computation he was and had been Bishop of Rome Eight or Nine years 6. I desire then to know Whether Peter after this Consent and Agreement of the Apostles continued Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome as our Adversaries pretend he did or not If he did he contradicted his Commission which our blessed Saviour had given him to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and Neglected the Jews whom he had Concredited to his care and Committed to him as his proper Charge For to take the charge of the Gentiles and Jews too was not only against his Commission but against that Solemn Consent and Agreement of the Apostles before mention'd wherein it was agreed and promised That Peter should go not to Rome but to the Circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles Nor can it be credible that Peter would Act in Contradiction to his Commission and his Agreement so solemnly made with the Apostles But if at the time of that Agreement which was Anno Christi 51. he either was not which is most true Bishop of Rome or then left it then it evidently follows That he Continued not Bishop of Rome for Five and twenty years as is by our Adversaries with great confidence and no reason asserted 7. And this is further manifest from our Adversaries own Principles and Positions Baronius tells us That Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and at Rome five and twenty years And for this he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon By the way concerning what Baronius says of Peter's being Bishop for so many years at Antioch and
Rome Observe 1. That Eusebius says indeed that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and then by our blessed Saviour's Command as they say went to Rome But so far is he from saying that he was seven years Bishop there that he expresly says That Euodius was the First Bishop of Antioch 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome and refers us to what Eusebius says ad Ann. 2. Claudij The man who understood no Greek is miserably mistaken as Universally he is when he meddles with Greek Authors unless their Translations be true for Eusebius in his Greek Text as all know and may see has no such thing as Five and twenty years nay he does not so much as say that he was Bishop of Rome at all much less that he was Five and twenty years Bishop there But the Latin Copies Interpolated and Corrupted as thousands others are by Roman Arts deceived him But to let this pass Baronius says That Peter was Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Five and twenty of Rome So that in the whole he was Two and thirty years Bishop in Syria and Italy and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was Anno Christi 34. to which if 32. be added the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome the product will be 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a Gentile-Church and his Martyrdom was 13. Neronis that is Anno Christi 68. or as Baronius Computes 69. whence by this their Account it evidently follows that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom about two years only excepted Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a Gentile-Church Which is 1. Manifestly untrue and inconsistent with what is said of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with his Commission in which the care of the Circumcision was concredited to him by our blessed Saviour and with his Solemn Agreement with the Apostles to go to the Circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles And 2. It is without any the least ground in Scripture by which it neither does nor can appear that ever Peter was at Rome so much as for one Day much less that he was Bishop there Five and twenty years Nor can it appear in Scripture that ever he was at Antioch save once nor is there any mention of any thing he then did there save that he dissembled and was justly reprehended for it by St. Paul whereas it is evident in Scripture that St. Paul was at Antioch for a whole year at one time constituted the Church there confirmed them afterwards in the Faith and ordain'd Elders to govern them staid there a long time and continued there preaching the Gospel and yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe them Peter was Bishop there and not Paul The truth is though it be Evident that Paul as Apostle did all Episcopal Acts there yet 't is certain that neither he nor Peter was particularly Bishop of that or any other place 3. It is utterly incredible that Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church as they pretend should for Two and thirty years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that while the Apostles liv'd and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one Syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in those two and thirty years no nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who liv'd long in Antioch and longer in Rome and had opportunity nay had it been true a necessity to mention it He had need of a strong Faith who can believe this for my part Credat Judaeus Apella c. 4. And as for Peter's being Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Twenty five of Rome it is further Considerable That the greatest Patrons of this Popish Position although they agree in the Conclusion that Peter was so long Bishop at those two places yet they Contradict each other and the Truth and by their own Positions to save their Adversaries that Labour utterly Overthrow and Confute that Position they indeavour to prove This Evidently appears in this Case as it is stated by Onuphrius Baronius and Bellarmine 1. Onuphrius tells us That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea for Nine years next after our blessed Saviour's death that is till the year of Christ. 43. after this he was Bishop of Antioch Seven years to the year of our blessed Saviour 50. And then Five and twenty years heâ— sat Bishop of Rome that is by his own Computation till the year of Christ 75. So that by this Account Peter was Bishop of Rome Anno Christi 75. And yet he there says That Peter died Anno Christi 69. And then by his Calculation Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death 2. Baronius states the Question thus Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi 39. and was Bishop there Seven years that is till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says that from Antioch Peter went to Rome and sate there Bishop Five and twenty years that is till the year 71. And so by his own account Peter must be Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead For the same Baronius tells us that Peter died Anno Christi 69. And though this Account of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome be not only Erroneous but to all Intelligent Persons Ridiculous yet Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius but to Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius c. whose Opinions Baronius endeavours to confute In short as there is no ground in Scripture that Peter ever was at Rome so that he was Twenty five years Bishop there neither Scripture nor purer Antiquity affords them any proof or probability Eusebius his Greek Chronicon basely corrupted in a Latin Version of it about Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour being that they must rely upon 5. Our Adversaries had ill luck when they made Peter first Bishop of Rome attributed the Supremacy to him and that he might have it made the Pope his Successor For had they chosen Paul in stead of Peter they might have had far more though not enough to prove and that out of express Scripture both Paul's Supremacy and the Popes Succession to him For these following Particulars every one of them may evidently be proved out of Scripture 1. That the Romans were Gentiles 2. That Paul by our blessed Saviour's Appointment was the Apostle of the Gentiles Peter was not but of the Jews 3. Paul
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
Vicars and Successors of Christ and have the Power of the Keys to bind and loose retain and remit sins Equally given to them All. Now if this be true then it will inevitably follow That all the Arguments they usually bring to prove the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy even over Kings and Emperors because he was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him I say All such Arguments from such Topicks will not only be inconsequent but indeed altogether impertinent and ridiculous For if this Argument be good and concluding The Keys were given to Peter and he is the Vicar of Christ Ergo He is the sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church Then this will be as good and concluding Every Apostle as well as Peter was the Vicar of Christ and had the Keys given him Ergo Every Apostle was sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church And then by this wild Logick we shall have Twelve or Thirteen Persons and every one of them sole Supream Monarch of the whole Church That the Power of the Keys was by our blessed Saviour given to All the Apostles as well as Peter seems to me Evident by the Premisses and that all of them as much and as well as He were Christi Vicarij Christ's Vicars may be as Evident and must be Confess'd even by our Adversaries unless they will deny the plain Truth of Scripture and their own received Principles For 1. Our blessed Saviour tells us As my Father sent me so send I you Christ was our great Apostle sent immediately by his Father so that he was Legatus Vicarius Patris his Father's Vicar and Ambassador as St. Ambrose says And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles as his Vicars and Ambassadors So the same Father tells us in the same place and St. Paul says as much of himself and the other Apostles He hath Committed to us the Word of Reconciliation now then We are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs's stead All the Apostles were by our blessed Saviour Commission'd and sent as his Ambassadors what they did was in Christ's stead and place They were his Vicars and what they did was as his Deputies Vice-Christi supplying his place Thus Lyranus and the Interlinatory Glossator and they no Lutherans Explain that place so the Famous Bishop of Paris and Father of the School-men Peter Lombard so Pope Gregory the Great nay the Jesuits Instituta Societat Jesu Tom. 3. pag. 262. 263. acknowledge their Superiors though they be neither Popes nor Apostles to be Vicarios Christi Christ's Vicars And that I may neither trouble the Reader nor my self with more Testimonies Their own Authentick Offices which have been or are Approved and publickly used in their Church expresly say the very same thing That the Apostles All of them as well as Peter were Christ's Vicars particularly the present Roman Missal as does manifestly appear by the place quoted in the Margent This then being certain and by our Adversaries Confess'd That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour at the same time and in the very same words when and wherein they were given to Peter I say this being granted as it is and must it will be absolutely impossible for them to prove any Superiority in Peter much less a Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles from his Title of Christ's Vicar or the Power of the Keys both which every Apostle had as well and as much as He unless you will say That very Power which only makes Peter Equal to the rest makes him their Monarch and Superior Sure I am if this Argument be good and they have no better Peter is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo he is Superior to John Then this will be good too John is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Ergo He is Superior to Peter But enough if not too much of this For the Arguments they bring for the Popes Supremacy drawn from his being Christ's Vicar and having the Power of the Keys are such as rather deserve pity or scorn then any serious Answer were it not that their greatest men for Place and Learning even their Infallible Popes in their Authentick Bulls perpetually urge them to prove the Pope Superior to Kings and Emperors and to have what Pope Pius V. in This Impious Bull against Queen Elizabeth pretends to Power to Depose them and Absolve Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity The Premises considered I think it is Evident and I doubt not but Impartial and Intelligent men think so too 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter was Christ's Vicar and had the Power of the Keys Committed to him by our blessed Saviour and that Immediately without Any dependence on Peter or any other Sure I am that Cardinal Cusanus though a zealous Assertor of the Pope's Supremacy was convinc'd of this Truth as to St. Paul and so he might for the Rest and does in Terminis Acknowledge it He says That both Peter and Paul were Ecclesiae Principes Princes of the Catholick Church That they both of them had the Power of the Keys power to bind and loose and both of them had it Immediately from our blessed Saviour That as Peter was Primate as to the Jews so Paul was Primate as to the Gentiles and so that in this Primacy Peter was not subject to Paul nor Paul to Peter but each of them had that Primacy Immediately from Christ without any dependence on each other And this Cusanus there proves out of Ambrose Augustine and Hierome 2. And as every Apostle as well as Peter was Vicar of Christ and had the Power of the Keys so it appears by the Premises and is Confess'd by our Adversaries in the Places before Cited that all of them transferred that Title and Power to their Successors so that every Bishop and every Priest after the Apostles is Christ's Vicar and has the Power of the Keys Whence it Evidently follows that the Bishops of Rome notwithstanding their great Noise and groundless pretence to the contrary are no more our blessed Saviour's Vicars nor have any more Power of the Keys then any I say again then any other Bishop in the World The Pope and Bishop of Rome no more then the Bishops of Roan and Rochester For their own Oecumenical and with them Infallible Council of Trent assures us of two things 1. That all Bishops are Apostolorum Successores Successors of the Apostles 2. That our blessed Saviour when he was about to Ascend into Heaven left Sacerdotes that is Bishops and other Priests his Vicars and gave them the Power of the Keys to bind and loose to remit and retain sins To conclude this Point If the Pope and his
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
Princeps Omnium Apostolorum And then it there follows Christus Petrum Vniversi Fidelium Generis Caput ut Qui ei successit Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem habere voluerit It was our blessed Saviour's will That Peter should have The same Power our blessed Saviour had Sed Apage nugas Impias Blasphemas The bare recitation of such wild Positions should and will be Confutation enough to all sober Christians who are solicitous to maintain our blessed Saviour's Honor and will never give that Place or Power to the Pope or Peter which is solely and eternally due to their Redeemer 3. But further when our Adversaries upon that Place of Matthew Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church would have us believe That Peter was that Rock while he liv'd and his Successors after him And thence infer their Supremacy They must pardon our Infidelity if we believe it not For 1. They do or might know that not only Protestants but the Fathers and Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers generally by Rock in that Text understand not Peter's Person but either the Profession of his Faith he there made or our blessed Saviour But our Adversaries like not this Doctrine And therefore when Hilary had truly said Vnum hoc est immobile fundamentum Vna Haec est foelix fidei Petra Petri Ore Confessa and Erasmus had put this Note in the Margent Petram Interpretatur Ipsam Fidei Professionem and when the same Erasmus on Matth. XVI 18. had cited Augustin for the same sense of the place which Hilary gives And had put in the Margent Ecclesia non est fundata super Petrum The Spanish Inquisitors command it to be blotted out of Erasmus his Text and Margent Although Hilary and Augustin and many others as they well knew said the same thing 2. And this truth is so Evident that not only the Fathers and Ancient Authors but Sober and Learned men in the Church of Rome even in darkest times when Popery unhappily prevailed were of the same Judgment And by the Rock in this Place of Matthew upon this Rock I will build my Church understand not Peter but that Confession of his Faith there made to be meant So John Semeca Author of the Gloss upon Gratian and Nic. Lyranus and Ansel. Laudunensis Author of the Interlineary Gloss upon his Text of Matthew by the Rock on which the Church was built understand Christ our blessed Saviour and not Peter And a late Learned Sorbon Doctor though he would seem to say that Peter was that Rock yet acknowledgeth that by that Rock the Faith of Peter might be meant and not his Person Nay which is more considerable and may seem strange to the Reader the Fathers of the Trent Council expresly say That the Creed or Profession of Faith which the Church of Rome useth the Constantinopolitan Creed they mean and there set it down is The Firm and Only Foundation against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail and our present Text is in the Margent Cited for it whence it evidently appears that those Fathers at Trent have Declared That the Creed or true Faith of Christ is that firm Rock and The Only Foundation on which the Church is built and against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail and if that Faith be the only Foundation of such firmness then the Pope is not For if there be another then that is not what the Trent Fathers say it is the Only Foundation And lastly it is very considerable what Stapleton their Learned Professor at Doway and great Champion of their Church confesseth and without great Impudence he could not deny it that not only Chrysostome Cyril and Hilary but four Popes Leo Agatho Nicolas and Adrian each of them the first of that name have in their Decretal Epistles declared That the Rock on which the Church was built was not Peter's Person but his Faith or Confession of it This was the Opinion of those ancient Popes and they as infallible sure as any of their Successors By the way that we may observe the Contradiction amongst our Adversaries notwithstanding the pretended Infallibility of their Church The Trent Catechism says That Peter Only was the Rock on which our blessed Saviour built his Church And this the Author or Authors of the Catechism pretends to prove out of Cyprian some others there named So that if the Trent Council say True the Creed or the Confession of the Cathol Faith is the Only Foundation on which the Church is built but if the Trent Catechism be in the Right Peter Only is that Rock and Foundation Now seeing it is impossible that both these Positions should be true it Evidently follows that there is an Error in the Council or Catechism or which I rather believe in both That this may further appear I say 4. That 't is certain and generally Confess'd That a Lively Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel is a Rock and Foundation against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail Our blessed Saviour tells us That he who hears his sayings and doth them he who really and practically believes the Gospel builds upon a Rock And St. John tell us That such Faith is victorious nay victory and cannot be overcome Hence it is that in the Liturgie of St. James in the Administration of the Eucharist they pray That God would bless the Sacred Elements that they might be Effectual to the Establishment of the Holy Catholick Church which he had Founded and Built upon the Rock of Faith But though Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel be a Rock yet 't is not as the Trent Fathers say the Only Rock on which the Church is built Peter was a Rock too this our Adversaries Confess and earnestly Contend for But neither was he the Only Rock though the Trent Catechism and Popish Writers commonly say so nor such a Rock as they without any Reason or Just Ground would have him That this may Appear it is to be Considered 1. That by Evident Scripture our blessed Saviour is the Prime and Chief Fundamental Rock on which the whole Church is built Behold says God by Isay I lay in Sion for a Foundation a Stone a precious Corner Stone a Sure Foundation c. I know that in the Vulgar Latin of Sixtus V. and Clemens 8. it is untruly render'd Lapideâ— pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum Whence Bellarmine will have it meant of Peter and so of the Pope who in his Opinion is Lapis pretiosus in Fundamento fundatus But had the Cardinal consulted the Hebrew Text or the Version of the Septuagint or Hieromes Version of both and his Notes upon them he might have seen his Error But though Bellarmine Expound this Place of Isay to be meant of Peter yet Peter himself who understood that Text as well as the
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
same purpose 2. It is certain and Confess'd that our blessed Saviour in this place of Matthew does not Actually give St. Peter the Power of the Keys be what it will but pro futuro promise that he will give it For it is in that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabo I will give not I have given or do give and therefore they must shew some other place in Scripture where that Power is Actually given to Peter and that to him alone else if it be given to the other Apostles as well as to him it will be Impossible to prove his Prerogative and Supremacy over the other Apostles from that Power which they have as well as he 3. But it is certain that the Power of the Keys bâ— what it will was by our blessed Saviour afterwards given to all the Apostles as well and 〈◊〉 much as to Peter So it evidently Appears bâ— St. Matthew in the place Cited Where ouâ— blessed Saviour speaking to all his Disciples aâ— well as Peter hath these words Verily I say untâ— You 't is all of them he speaks to whatsoeveâ— you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaveâ— and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall loosed in Heaven Here his Promise made beforâ— to Peter Chap. 16. 19. is made Good to him and the Power of the Keys given him but ' tâ—â— manifest that it is in the same time and Placâ— equally given to all the Apostles as well as 〈◊〉 Peter Their own Authentick Offices noâ— and heretofore in Publick use in the Church Rome do attest this truth In one of which they are taught to Invocate the Apostles in thâ— Form Orate pro eo Omnes Sancti Apostoâ—â— Quibus à Domino data est Potestas Ligandi Sâ—â—vendi The Power of Binding and Loosinâ—â— and so the Power of the Keys was given to the Apostles as well as to Peter This the Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledgâ— that the Power of binding and loosing was given Paul as well as Peter and further adds Thâ— Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul and 〈◊〉 Petri Pauli ligat solvit binds and looseth their stead and place The Ancient MS. Mâ—â—sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham says the â—ry same thing So does their St. Anselme aâ—â— the Old Ordo Romanus expresly says That the Power of the Keys or the Power of binding and loosing was by our blessed Saviour given to all the Apostles and in them to all their Successors Vide Bandinum Lombardum c. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 18. 19. and the rest there Their Trent Catechism published by Pope Pius V. according to the Decree of the Trent Council assures us That every Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour Hence it is that in their Roman Pontifical in their Ordination of a Priest this Power of the Keys of remitting and retaining sins is given to every one Ordain'd to that Office and which may seem strange in the very same words our blessed Saviour used when he gave that Power to Peter and the other Apostles Nor is this all Their Oecumenical Council of Trent approves and by a Synodical Definition and Decree confirms all this And says further That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left All Priests His Vicars as Presidents and Judges who By the Power of the Keys should Pronounce Sentence of the Remission and retaining of Sins And this they there prove out of this very Place of Matthew from which they would and generally endeavor to prove the Popes Absolute Monarchical Supremacy And Power to Depose Kings and Emperors To omit all other Instances which are too many sure I am that Pope Innocent IV. builded his Power to Depose the Emperor Friderick upon this one Text We saith that Pope being Christ's Vicar and it being said to us in the Person of Peter whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. do Depose that Emperor and Absolve all His Subjects from their Oaths of Allegigance c. From the Premisses and Authorities above Cited I think 't is Evident 1. That in that Text Matth. 16. 19. The Power of the Keys was only promised but not Actually given to Peter 2. When it was really and de facto given him Matth. 18. 18. It was as well and as much given to all the other Apostles as to him as besides what is aforesaid is attested and expresly affirmed by Pope Gregory the Great in his Book of the Sacraments published by Hugo Menardus a Learned Benedictine Monck where Pope Gregory and he as Wise and Learned and as Infallible as those who follow him teaches them to pray thus O God who hast Committed the Power of Binding and Loosing To the Apostles c. He knew not it seems any Supremacy given to Peter by our blessed Saviour when he gave him Potestatem Clavium The Power of the Keys seeing the same Power was given to other Apostles who never claim'd any such Supremacy 3. Lastly I desire then to know by what Logick they can prove St. Peter's Supremacy over all the Apostles for having a Power the Power of the Keys which every Apostle had as well as He. 4. There is one place more and but one wherein the Power of the Keys is Actually given to Peter The words are these As my Father sent me so send I you And he breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Where 1. It is certain and confess'd That though the Power of the Keys be not here expresly nam'd yet to retain and remit here in John signifies the very same thing That to bind and loose in Matthew where only the Power of the Keys is named This the Trent Catechism and the Trent Fathers themselves must and do acknowledge as will manifestly appear by the Places cited in the Margent and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John allow it and tell us truly That remittere here in John is the very same with solvere to loose in Matthew and so retinere here the same with ligare in Matthew 2. And 't is as certain from the express words of the Text and the undoubted meaning of them that the Power of the Keys is here given Equally to all the Apostles as well as Peter For so the words of their Commission I send You mine Apostles and he Breathed on Them his Apostles whose sins Ye my Apostles retain c. The Authority and Power here mention'd is without distinction or difference of Degree Equally given to all to James and John and Jude as well as Peter 3. Nay more it is Confess'd and positively and truly affirm'd by a very Learned Popish Author That all the Apostles as well as Peter are by this Commission
Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you And again Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Here I observe 1. That the Apostles in their first Mission were sent to the Jews and them only But now their Commission is Inlarged and they are Equally sent every one as much as any one to all Nations says Matthew To All the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Eusebius Explains it says St. Mark Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae Orbis Termini The whole World was their Diocese every ones Jurisdiction Extended so far and Peter's could not extend no further 2. For the Persons they were to Preach to they were Every Man in the World It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature every Rational Creature who if Infancy and Infirmity hinder'd not was capable They were to Convert Pagans and make them our blessed Saviour's Disciples and Sheep and then feed them with the Word and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Matthew Convert and make them Disciples and then Baptize and Teach them to observe whatever I have Commanded you Those words Feed my sheep on which without any just Reason they would build Peter's Supremacy contain only an Indefinite Proposition which as every one who understands Logick must Confess is only equivalent to a Particular But here the Commission given by our blessed Saviour to every Apostle as well as Peter is expresly Vniversal Preach to every Creature That is Feed All my sheep This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Roman Catholick Confesseth and fully proves it Only to save the Popes and his own Credit he says That to call General Councils belong'd only to Peter and the Pope by their Supremacy and not to any other But this is gratis dictum and an evident Untruth For the Pope by no Law of God or Man has or ever had Power to call any General Council And for many Ages never pretended to it which I only say now and when there is a Convenient time can and will make it Good In the mean time I think 't is certain either 1. That by those words Feed my sheep on which they build the Popes and Peters Supremacy our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supream Power to call General Councils that by them he might feed his Sheep Or 2. That the Apostles and Primitive Christians in their times knew no such thing For 1. When a Controversie arose at Antioch about Circumcision they send not to Peter as supream Head of the Church desiring him to call a Council but to the Apostles and Elders Had they known and believ'd that Peter had been Invested with such Power and Supremacy as is now pretended it had been Civility and Duty in them to have sent to him in the first place But they send to the Apostles and Elders without any notice taken of what they knew not Peter's Prerogative 2. It neither does nor can appear that Peter call'd that Council 3. Nor did he as Head and President of the Council speak first but the Question was much disputed before Peter spoke any thing 4. Nor did Peter after the Question was debated give the Definitive Sentence For 't is Evident in the Text That James the Less Son of Alphaeus and Bishop of Jerusalem gave the Definitive Sentence which both Peter and the whole Council acquiesc'd in 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch to signifie what he and the Council had done but the Apostles and the whole Church chose and sent their Messengers 6. Nor are the Letters sent in Peter's Name or any notice taken of any Primacy or Prerogative of his above the other Apostles No the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is The Apostles Elders and Brethren send Greeting 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name as made or confirm'd by him more than any other Apostle 8. Nay the Apostles send Peter on a Message to Samaria and he obeys and goes which had been a strange piece of Presumption had either he or they known his now pretended Monarchical Supremacy 9. So far were those Primitive Christians from knowing or acknowledging the now pretended Monarchical Supremacy of Peter that even in the Apostles times and Presence they question and call him to an Account for his Actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disceptabant adversus illum says the Vulgar Latin tanquam valde offensi expostulabant says Chrysostom And honest John Ferus a Roman Catholick tells us That he was Compell'd to give a Reason of his Actions to the Church nor was Peter offended at it because he knew that he was not a Lord but Minister of the Church But now as Ferus there goes on the Case is alter'd for wicked Popes as though they were Lords and not Ministers will not be Question'd for any thing or reprov'd Had the Canon Law been then in force which his pretended Successors have approved and by their Supream Authority publish'd he might have told those who Question'd him That he was to judge all men and none him nor was he to be reprov'd by any mortal man though by his Impiety and ill Example he carried thousands to Hell with him 10. Nay St. Paul does not only question St. Peter's Actions but to his face before the People publickly condemn them and that justly for he says he was to be blamed which he neither would nor indeed well could have done had he known Peter to have been so far his Superior as to have by Divine Institution a Monarchical Jurisdiction and Power over him 11. Lastly St. Paul himself tells us That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles not to Peter James or John whom elsewhere he reckons the chiefest I know they say That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office but Inferior to Peter as he was Supream Pastor over the Apostles and the whole Church But this is gratis dictum and indeed a begging of the Question and taking that for granted which never was nor ever will be proved However 't is certain 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter had an Vniversal supream Authority and Jurisdiction in any Part of the World and over any Christians wherever they came 2. That this largeness of their Jurisdiction was Apostolical and Personal to themselves which they neither did nor could transmit to their Successors whose Jurisdiction was limited to some City and Territory and that particular Place the Care and Charge whereof was committed unto them as Ephesus was to Timothy and Creet to Titus 3. Our Adversaries confess this as to all the other Apostles but for Peter they say He transmitted his Supremacy and Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church to his Successor and that by the Institution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right If they could prove this the Controversie were
at an end we would acquiesce and admit what upon undeniable evidence we deny the Popes Supremacy But this they neither do nor is there any possibility they ever should prove For there is not one Syllable in Scripture of Peter's Successor or of what Power he received from him and nothing but Scripture can prove our blessed Saviour's Institution and Divine Law whereby Peter's Supremacy is transmitted to his Successor The truth is that Pius V. in the beginning of this his Impious Bull and other Popes many times in their Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and their Writers generally take it for granted that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Supremacy over the whole Church and to his Successors after him And when some of them sometimes go about to prove it the Reasons they bring are so far from Sense and Consequence that they may deserve Pity and Contempt rather than a serious Answer But when Reason will not Convince they have other Roman Arts to Cosen men into a Belief that what was given to Peter was likewise given to the Pope his Successor and that is amongst other ways by Corrupting the Ancient Fathers with false Translations So when Chrysostom had faid That the Power of the Keys was not given to Peter only but to the rest of the Apostles Pet. Possinus adds Successors and renders it thus The Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter And His Successors c. where Chrysostome whom he Translates has nothing of Peter's Successors but truly and plainly says That the Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter but to the rest of the Apostles when our blessed Savionr told them whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So in the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Bishops of France and of his Legat Paschasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon these Words occur in the Latin Copies The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo Head of the Vniversal Church Where these words Head of the Vniversal Church are not in the Greek Copies as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly Confesseth but by Roman Arts falsly and basely interserted that so they might by fraud what by no Reason they can maintain the Pope's impiously usurped Supremacy And that we may know how unpleasing the publishing of such things though evidently true are to the Pope and his Party at Rome who are resolved in despight of truth to maintain the Popes pretended Supremacy this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholick Archbishop is damn'd by the Inquisitors not to be printed read or had by any He who seriously reads and understands the Latin Versions of the Greek Councils Fathers and other Greek and Latin Writers may find an hundred such Frauds to maintain what they know they have no just reason for their Papal and Antichristian Tyranny And their Jndices Expurgatorij are Authentick Evidences to Convince them of these Unchristian Practises to conceal truth and cosen the World into a belief of their pernicious Papal Errors Nor is this all nor the worst for so desperately are they set upon it that if their Interest and the Papal Monarchy cannot otherwise be maintain'd as 't is impossible it should by any just and lawful means they speak impiously and blasphemously of our blessed Saviour Thomas Campegius Episcopus Feltrensis in his Book of the Power of the Pope to Paul IV. says That our blessed Saviour had not been a Diligent Father of the Family to his Church unless he had left such a Monarch over his Church as the Pope of whom he is there speaking And the Cites Pope Innocent and Aquinas to justifie it Albertus Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose and expresly says That our blessed Saviour had been wanting to his Church in things necessary if he had not Constituted and left such a Monarch and Judge of Controversies And a great Canonist if that be possible more blasphemously says That our blessed Saviour while he was on Earth had power to pronounce the Sentence of Deposition and Damnation against the Emperor or any other And by the same Reason His Vicar now can do it And then he impiously adds That our blessed Saviour would not have seem'd Discreet unless he had left such a Vicar as could do all these things c. So if it be granted which is most evident and certainly true that our blessed Saviour left no such Monarchical Vicar as the Pope then they are not affraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion And this impious Gloss is approved and confirm'd by Pope Gregory XIII as we may be sure what makes for his Extravagant Power and Papal Monarchy how Erroneous and Impious soever shall not want his Approbation And thus much of the third Priviledge of the Apostles their Vniversal Jurisdiction equally in them all in James and John and Paul as much as Peter and this Jurisdiction Personal to all and never transmitted to any of their Successors 4. Besides the Immediate call of the Apostles their Power of doing Miracles and their Universal Jurisdiction over all the World they were all of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely Inspired by the Holy Ghost so that they had Infallibility so far as whatever they preach'd or writ was Divine and the undoubted Word of God This Priviledge also was Personal nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors I know that the Canonists and Jesuits in the last and worst of times would make the World believe without any shadow of rational ground that Peter transferred his Infallibility to the Pope and made him the Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith and Fact too A thing so evidently false and without any possibility of proof that 't is a wonder tha◠any should have the Confidence to assert it especially in Paris the great Metropolis of 〈◊〉 Church which constantly does and has deny◠the Popes Infallibility and Superiority to a General Council 2. But that which might fo◠ever silence this Irrational and Injust Claim 〈◊〉 Infallibility in the Pope is that for Matter o◠Fact none of them though they were some times nibling at a kind of Supremacy for above a Thousand Years after our blessed Saviour either did or dared pretend to Infallibility and if they had they had made themselves ridiculous For 3. It was notoriously known that several of their Popes were Hereticks For instance Liberius Honorius Vigilius c. And for Heresie Condemn'd in General Councils as is evident from the Acts themselves and has been demonstrated not only by Protestants but by very Learned men of the Roman Communion 4. And he who seriously reads and impartially considers their Papal Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and in them how ridiculously they reason and prophane rather than expound Scripture will have abundant
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
Cases of High Treason Nor was this Rebellious Doctrine maintained only by the Popes Party and Parasites but the Pope himself whom the Jesuits and Canonists miscall Infallible approves and justifies it and in Decemb. 1605. tells the Venetian Ambassador That Ecclesiasticks were not Comprehended in the number of A Princes Subjects nor could be Punished By him though they were Rebels A hundred such Passages out of their School-men Canonists Casuists especially the Jesuites and their Canon Law might easily be quoted but these to Impartial and Intelligent Persons will be sufficient to Evince That the Pope and his Party do publickly and expresly maintain this Rebellious Doctrine and when it makes for their Catholick Cause and they have Opportunity and Ability to put it in Execution do also practise it The Sum of which Damnable Doctrine repugnant to the clear Principles of Nature and Scripture and all Religions save that of Rome is this If any King be Excommunicate and Deposed by the Pope then any of his Subjects Clergy or Laity horresco referens may take Arms and Rebel against him or Murder him and yet by this Impious Popish Doctrine be neither Rebels nor Traitors And if their King be neither Excommunicate nor Deposed but stands rectus in Curia Romanâ and be as they call it a good Catholick yet if any of his Ecclesiasticks Secular or Regular Rebel or Murder him it can be no Treason or Rebellion in them seeing according to their Principles they are none of his Subjects nor he their Superior and Treason or Rebellion against an Equal or Inferior is in propriety of Law impossible But this is not all For 3. Let it be granted which is both Impious and Evidently untrue That any Popish Assassin or Roman Raviliac had not been Guilty of any Treason if he had kill'd the Queen after the Pope had Deposed her as a Heretick yet sure they must grant that it was Murder and an Impious Act to kill a Person overwhom he had no Jurisdiction No this they deny the approved and received Principles of the Popish Church acquit such Prodigious Villains not only from Rebellion and Treason but from Murder too He who had kill'd the Queen after Excommunication and Deposition by the Pope had been no Traitor nor which is less so much as a Murderer We are told in the Body of their Canon Law That they are no Murderers who out of Zeal to the Church take Arms against Excommunicate Persons So the Title prefix'd to the Canon cited in the Margent and the Text of the Canon says further Those Souldiers so armed Are not Murderers if out of a burning Zeal to their Catholick Mother the Church of Rome he means they Kill any of such Excommunicate Hereticks Thus the Case is deliberately determin'd by their Supream Infallible Judge Pope Vrban the Second a little before the end of the Eleventh Century and about Twenty years after by Ivo Carnotensis referred into a Collection of the Roman Canons And Gratian about Forty years after Ivo Registers it in his Decretum which Pope Gregory the Thirteenth approves and confirms for Law and so it stands confirm'd and received for Law in their last and best Editions of that Law ever since Whence it may and does appear that this Impious and Rebellious Doctrine That Killing Kings or Queens Excommunicate by the Pope was no Murder has been approved at Rome since the Devil was let loose and Antichrist appeared above Six hundred years I know that honest Father Caron not so disloyal as most of his Party indeavours to mollifie this Rebellious Constitution of Pope Vrban the Second and tells us that the meaning of that Canon is only this That if any man by Chance and Casually had kill'd an Excommunicated Person si contigerit trucidasse then he was not A Formal Murderer So Pope Urban ' s Sentence was not to Excuse those from Murder who Intended and directly Purposed to kill Hereticks and Excommunicate Persons For says he this were to Overthrow all Truth and Fidelity to Princes The good man was God forgive him a Roman Catholick and believed though Erroneously that the Supream Head of his Church and St. Peter's Successor and Vicar of Christ could not approve and maintain such a Rebellious and Impious Position and Principle That men might lawfully be kill'd because they were Hereticks or Excommunicate Persons which he there truly calls A Horrible Cursed and Execrable Principle That the Doctrine is Cursed and Execrable is easily believed and by me willingly granted But that Vrban the Second did not in that Canon approve it notwithstanding what Father Caron has said to the contrary I absolutely deny Sure I am 1. That Cardinal Bellarmine as is confessed by Father Caron in the place cited expounds that Canon as I have done 2. So does Cardinal Turrecremato too who says That Excommunicate Hereticks may be kill'd not only Casually as Father Caron mistakes the Text but with an Intention and Purpose to kill them and yet they who intend and do kill them be no Murderers but both the Intention and Act Just and Innocent But then their Intention must not be to get the Goods of those Hereticks they kill but it must be Zelo Matris Ecclesiae to secure the Church from the Mischievous Designs of those Hereticks So that in the Opinion of this great Cardinal and Canonist who well knew the opinions and practise of their Church killing of Hereticks was so far from being Murder that it was no Crime at all but sine Reatu as he says without all guilt and therefore nulla poenitentia erat imponenda it needed no Repentance 3. Cardinal Peron in his Oration to the Estates of France does expresly affirm That all Tyrants by Vsurpation may lawfully be kill'd and such was Queen Elizabeth and all Protestant Kings and Princes now are in the Judgment of the Pope and his Party seeing they all did and now do stand Excommunicate at Rome and deprived of all Dominion and therefore their medling with the Government after such Deprivation is evidently Usurpation in the Opinion of our Adversaries and then it follows on their Principles that they may lawfully be kill'd and therefore the killing of them cannot be Murder it being impossible that a Crime against the Indispensable Law of Nature should be lawful 4. But we have greater Evidence to prove that at Rome the killing of Protestant Princes as Excommunicate Hereticks is not Murder For in the year 1648. when the Parliament was or seemed to be severe against Papists as believing and maintaining Principles Inconsistent with our Government This Question amongst others was proposed to some of our English Popish Divines Whether the Pope could Depose or Kill Protestant Princes or Magistrates as Excommunicate Persons Some of those Divines met and whether out of Love of Truth or fear of the Parliament I know not Subscribed the Negative
but freely Profess that the Pope upon just cause and he is Judge of that may Excommunicate and Depose Princes and Absolve their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance And then he adds That the Subjects are bound in Conscience to Obey the Popes Sentence not only in the Cases mentioned But in All other of the like Nature And this impious and traiterous Doctrine of Gretser is not only approved by the Provincial of the Jesuites in Germany and the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ingolstade but his whole Book and so those mentioned and many more such Rebellious and Impious Positions Was Approved at Rome by the Suffrage of Most Learned Divines This the said Provincial of the Jesuites and the Rector of the University of Ingolstade expresly testifie in their Publick and Printed Approbations of Gretsers Book The Premisses and Traiterous Popish Principles consider'd which are received and believed at Rome though men may wonder at the Beast the Pope and his Party and that any who would not only be thought Christians but the only Catholicks in the World should maintain and publickly justifie such Principles yet we need not wonder that such Persons should practise and act according to such Principles and continually indeavour especially after the Anathema of Pius the Fifth by Rebellions at home and Invasions from abroad to rob Queen Elizabeth of her Crown and Kingdoms and of her Life too by Roman and Mahometan Assassinations I say we need not wonder at this For let the aforesaid Doctrines which they approve and constantly contend for be granted That the Pope is Supream Judge and Monarch of the World directè or indirecte that all Kings and Emperors are His Subjects that he has Power to Depose and Deprive them of their Kingdoms that when he has Judicially deprived them any Private Person may Murder them that he has Power to Absolve their Subjects from all Obligations and Oaths of Allegiance and to Command them upon pain of an Anathema never to obey any of their Princes Laws or Commands that the People may depose their King with His Consent and Counsel and that he may Command and Compel them to do it and this so oft as he shall Think it Good for the Spiritual Health of the Kingdom Prodigious Error and Impiety as if Rebellion Assassinations and Murdering their Kings conduc'd to the Salvation of the Subjects I say these Erroneous and Impious Doctrines granted and as they are at Rome believ'd it is certain that so far as they have opportunity and ability they will as they ever have done prosecute their Interest and practise according to those Principles and all Christian Kings will be in perpetual danger to loose their Crowns their Kingdoms and their Lives too unless they can please the Pope and become his dutiful Servants and indeed Slaves to his Anti-Christian Tyranny I say no Christian King Tros Tyriusve Papist or Protestant can be out of eminent Danger where such Doctrine is by such Doctors maintain'd We have sad and certain Instances of this Truth For 1. Henry the Third and Fourth of France were neither Calvinists nor Lutherans but declared Sons of the Roman Synagogue yet because they did not Comply with the Popish Interest in that degree and measure the Pope and his Party expected they fatally fell by the Traiterous and Prodigious Villany of bloody Assassins Ridente gaudente Roma The Pope and his Jesuitical Party with an Extasie of Joy Approving and Commending the Treason and in their Writings and Pictures Canonizing the Traitors 2. For Protestants and as they call them Heretical Princes their danger proportionable to Romes hatred of them is greater They may by the Power and Gracious Providence of God want ability but they neither do nor unless they renounce their Erroneous and Impious Principles ever will want a desire and indeavour to ruine those they call Hereticks either by open Hostility and Rebellions or by Poyson Pistols and private Assassinations Their many known Plots and Conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth King James Charles the Martyr and his Gracious Majesty now Reigning whom God preserve are undeniable Demonstrations of this Truth The Ark of God and Dagon Light and Darkness Truth and Error the Bible and Popish Bullary Protestancy and Popery cannot possibly Consist and be in Peace Nothing is or can be so destructive of Darkness and Error as Truth and Light And 't is evidently known to this Western World That the Evangelical Light and Truth which the Protestants have haphily and clearly discovered to the long deluded Church of God have awakened thousands to a detestation of that Superstition and Idolatry under which they formerly lay to the dishonour of God and ruine of their Souls and to a shaking and great diminution of the Papal Monarchy and Tyranny so many Kingdoms forsaking Rome and shaking off the Heavy and Intollerable Yoke of Sin and Popish Servitude Et hinc illae Lacrymae Hence it is that the Pope and his inraged Party when they cannot by any probable pretence of Reason confute what they call Heresie the Protestant Religion they indeavour to Confound and by Fire and Sword Consume the Hereticks Aeterna bella pace sublatâ gerunt Jurant odium nec prius hostes esse desinunt quam esse desinunt They excite and incourage Princes of their Profession to persecute and destroy all Protestants in their Dominions and their barbarous and bloody Poet has told us how they desire it to be done Vtere Jure Tuo Caesar Sectámque Lutheri Ense Rota Ponto Funibus Igne neca Use thy Power Caesar let Lutherans be slain By Fire Rack Halter Sword or drown'd i th' Maine DAMNATIO ET EXCOMMUNICATIO Henrici VIII REGIS ANGLIAE EJUSQUE FAUTORUM Cum aliarum ADJECTIONE POENARUM Paulus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei Ad futuram Rei Memoriam EJVS qui immobilis permanens sua Providentia Ordine mirabili dat cuncta moveri disponente Clementiâ vices licet immeriti gentes in Terris in Sede Justitiae Constituti juxta quoque Prophetae Hieremiae vaticinium Ecce Te Constitui super Gentes Regna ut evellas destruas aedisices plantes praecipuum super Omnes Reges Vniversae Terrae cunctosque populos obtinentes Principatum ac illum qui pius misericors est vindictam ei qui illam praevenit paratam temperat nec quos Impoenitentes videt severa ultione Castigat quin prius Comminetur in assidue autem peccantes in peccatis perseverantes cum Excessus Misericordiae sines praeteriunt ut saltem metu poenae ad Cor reverti cogantur Justitiae vires Exercet imitantes Incumbenti Nobis Apostolicae solicitudinis studio perurgemur ut cunctarum Personarum nostrae Curae Coelitùs Commissarum salubri Statui solertius Intèndamus ac Erroribus Scandalis quae hostis Antiqut versutia imminere conspicimus propensius obviemus Excessusque Enormia ac scandalosa
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Filius perditionis qui Adversatur x Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 2. 4. y Matth. 26. 27. z Mark 14. 23. a Concilium Constantiense Sess. 13. b Licet Christus post coenam Instituerit Discipulis sub Vtrâque Specie panis vini administraverit Hoc non Obstante c. Ibid. c Licet in Primitivâ Ecclesiâ hoc Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub Vtrâque Specie tamen Consuetudo ab Ecclesiâ introducta pro lege habenda est Ibidem By the way let the Intelligent and Impartial Reader consider with what contradiction to truth and right reason the Fathers at Constance establish their half Communion They reject the uninterrupted perpetual Custom of the Universal Church both Greek and Latin Eastern and Western for above One thousand two hundred years for receiving the Communion in both kinds and yet tell us That a late Custom of the Roman Church only and that in some places only for it was not a general Custom in the Roman Church to receive only in one kind till Ann. 1414. the Council of Constance met and defined it must be a Law to oblige all to receive only in one kind d Pertinacitèr asseremes oppositum tanquam Haeretici arcâ—ndi sunt Gravitèr puniendi Ibidem e Nulluâ— Presbyter sub poenâ Excommunicationis Communicet populum sub utraque Specie Ibidem f Lindanus in Panoplia Lib. 4. Cap. 56. pag. 342. Edit Colon. 1575. g Card. Bona de rebus Liturgicis Lib. 2. Cap. 18. pag. 491. 492. Paris 1672. h In Quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo Sanguis Sumendus non detur Aquinas part 3. Quaest. 8. Art 12. in Corpore i Which was about the year of Christ 1265. Bellarmine de Script Ecclesiasticis in Tho. Aquinate l 1. Cor. 14. m Ibid. vers 37. The things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. n Ibid. vers 26. vers 12. o Ibid. vers 17. p Ibid. vers 6. q Ibid. vers 2. 9. 14. 15. 16. r Ibid. vers 28. s Ibid. vers 23. t Cum quidam Missale Romanum ad Gallicam viâ—â—g arem linguam convertere tent averint Nos Novitatem istam Ecclestae decoris deformatricem detestamur Missale praedictum Gallico Idiomate conscriptum damnamus ac Interdicimus sub poenâ Excommunicationis latae Sententiae Ipso Jure incurrendae Mandantes ut qui illud habuerint tradant Ordinarijs aut Inquisitoribus qui sine Morâ Exemplaria igne comburant Bulla Alexand 7. dat Romae 12. Jan. 1661. Pontificatûs Ann. 6. u Vid. Bullam Cloment 9. Rom. 9. April 1668. It was to be burnt by the Bishop or Inquisitors even their own Missal in French x Quidam Perditionis Filij in perniciem Animarum novitatibus studentes Ecclesiasticas Sanctiones praxin Contemnentes ad cam nuper Vesaniam pervenerint ut Missale Romanum in Gallicam vulgarem linguam convertere tentaverint So it is in the said Bull. y 2. Thess. 2. vers 3. 4. z Vide Corn. A Lapide in 1. Cor. 14. Costeri Enchiridion Cap. 17. De precibus Latine Recitandis pag. 502. c. Johan Eckij Enchiridion adversus Lutherum pag. 392. Colon. 1565. vide Azorium Instit. Moral Part. 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. a Hen. Holden Theologus Parisiensis in Annotat ad i. Cor. 14. Paris 1660. b Nulla conceditur facultas Legendi vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria aut alias Sacrae Scripturae partes quavis Vulgari Linguâ Editas Insuper Summaria Compendia etiam Historia Sacrae Scripturae quocunque vulgari Idiomate conscripta quod Inviolatè Observandum Vid. Observat. ad Regul 4. Indicis in Calce Concilij Trident. Antverp 1633. Indicem Expurg Alexand 7. Rom. 1667. p. 14. verbo Biblia Bibliorum c Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem Detrimenti quam Vtilitatis Oriri Ibid. Reg. 4. In Indice Alexand. 7. p. 4. d Librorum prohibitorum Lectio magno sincerae fidei Cultoribus Detrimento esse noscitur Urban 8. Constit. 114. Bullarij Rom. Tom. 4. §. 1. p. 119. Edit Rom. An. 1638. e Liber Versionis Gallicae Novi Testamenti cui Titulus est Le Nouvean Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ c. Nos Librum hujusmodi tanquam temerariu Damnosum à vulgatâ Editione deformem Damnamus prohibemus ita ut nemo cujuscunque Conditionis sub poena Excommunicationis illum legere aut retinere audeat sed Ordinariis aut Inqlisitoribus deferat c. Ita Clem. 9. Bulla data Rom. 20. Apr. An. 1668. f li qui Libros prohibitos habuerint cos ad Episcopum aut Inquisitores deserant qui eos quantocyus Comburere debeant Ibid. §. 3. g In his Bull 9. Apr. 1668. Pontificatus sui Ann. 1. Damnamus mandantes ut quicunque librum illum Ritualem habuerint vel habebunt locerum Ordinariis vel Inquisitoribus statim tradant qui nullâ interpositâ mora igni comburant aut comburi faciant c h Item Alboranus Mahometis in Linguâ Vulgari ex Concessione Inquisitorum haberi possit Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandr 7. Edit Rom. 1664. pag. 3. i Biblin quocunque I diomate Vulgari conscripta Ita Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Editus Romae 1667. verbo Biblia p. 14. k Extollitur super Omne quod dicitur Deus aut quod Colitur Clem. 8. in Bibliis 1592. l Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 4. §. 27. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Colo veneror 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidae Hesychio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Colendum venerandum Id quod veneratur Athanasius Orat. Contra Gentes ex sapientiâ Sirach c. 14. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numen Deum significat Sic Act. 17. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacra Gentilia quae venerabantur seu Numina Altaria Templa c. Hinc Caesares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Augusti Hesychio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Sanctiss Vrban 8. Vniversi Imperator Angelus Maria Cherubinus in Calce Tom. 4. Bullarij Romani Rom. 1638. pag. 120. o Vid. Cap. Solicit 6. Extra De Major Obed. Quanta est inter Solem Lunam tanta inter Pontifices Reges differentia cognoscatur p Vid. Corpus Juris Canon cum Glossis Paris 1612. q Palam est quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem Lunae 7744 ½ Vice Addit ad Gloss. verb. Inter Solem. Ad dictum cap. 6. r Clavius Comment in Johan de Sacro Bosco p. 189. s 2 Thess. 2. 4. t Rom. 13. 1. u 1. Pet. 2. 13. x Act. 25. 11. y Athanasius in Apologia ad Constantium Tom. 1. p. 680. D. z Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. Apolog. c. 30. a Tu es Pastor Ovium Princeps Apostolorum Tibi Tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi Breviar
Brutum Fulmen OR THE BULL OF Pope Pius V. Concerning the Damnation Excommunication and Deposition OF Q. ELIZABETH As also the Absolution of her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance with a Peremptory Injunction upon Pain of an Anathema never to obey any of Her Laws or Commands With some Observations and Animadversions upon it By THOMAS Lord Bishop of Lincoln Whereunto is Annex'd the Bull of Pope Paul the Third containing the Damnation Excommunication c. of King Henry the Eighth Come out of her my People that ye partake not of her Sins and Plagues Rev. XVIII 4. LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXI The Right Hon. ble Algernon Capell Earl of Essex Viscount Maldon and Baron Capell of Hadham 〈◊〉 THE EIPSTLE TO THE READER Reader WHoever thou art Protestant or Papist Courteous or Censorious having made these Papers publick thou hast a liberty to read and a right to judge and that thou maist do it impartially not out of hate or kindness to me but upon a serious and just Consideration of the Cause I shall neither importune thy Favour nor deprecate when 't is just thy severest Censure For 1. 'T is truth I have impartially desired and not indiligently sought and if by the blessing of God I have found it Magna est veritas praevalebit it will prevail in despite of all Enemies and Opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nat super non immersabilis undis Truth we know especially Divine Truth which concerns our Souls and their salvation ever had and so long as there are Devils and wicked Men will have in this World many Enemies who will indeavour what they cannot do to suppress it premi potest veritas opprimi non potest They may dipp and for some time keep it under water but they cannot drown it If these Papers contain truth as I hope they do then I am sure that every Intelligent Reader and pious lover of Truth will be its Patron and though in this Epistle I do not sollicit him ready to vindicate it from the Objections of its Adversaries But on the other side if my Reader relate to Rome and be possess'd with strong delusion to believe against Reason and Divine Revelation his Catholick Cause the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility it will be in vain for me in this Epistle to desire what I believe I cannot have his Favour However he shall have my Pity and Prayers That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to open his Eyes and bless him with the Knowledge and Love of the Truth 2. We know 't is true what the great Roman Orator long since said Humanum est errare labi decipi c. The wisest men have their mistakes Bernardus non videt Omnia quandóque bonus dormitat Homerus Since Adam fell the best men have their Infirmities and sometimes erre even when they desire and seek Truth Since the Prophets our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left the world I know no man Infallible nor any save the Pope who against evident Reason and the sense of Christendom pretends to it For my own part I do humbly acknowledge my many and great Infirmities and for these Papers Hominem pagina nostra sapit there may be mistakes and errors in them yet it is my hope and not ungrounded belief that there are none such as may prove pernicious or in the main dangerous Non hic Centauros non Gorgonas Harpyasve invenies No such prodigious and pernicious errors as our Popish Adversaries maintain so far as they are able vindicate such I mean as their stupid Doctrine of Transubstantiation contradictory to Natural Reason Divine Revelation and all our Senses their Idolatrous Adoration of a piece of Bread with Divine Worship due to God only their Sacrilegious robbing the Laity of half the Sacrament in the Eucharist contrary to our blessed Saviour's express Command and the practise of the Christian World even of the Church of Rome her self for above a thousand years as their own great and learned Writers confess c. I say such errors as these I do and have reason to believe the Reader will not find in these Papers Though it be certain and confess'd that every one even the best and most learned Writers are fallible yet so long as they rationally build their Conclusions upon the clear Principles of Nature Scripture or Vniversal Tradition They may be sure enough and so may their Reader too that they are not actually false nor what they so write erroneous However if the Reader find any errors of what nature soever and can make it appear that they are indeed errors I shall not as I said before deprecate his severest Censure but concur with him and Censure them my self as much as he and do hereby promise publickly to retract them and heartily thank him for the discovery For in this Case my Reader and I shall both be Gainers and in a several way Conquerors Vicimus utérque nostrum palmam Tu refers mei Ego Erroris my Reader has overcome me by manifesting my mistakes and I by his help have overcome those errors otherwise in Cyprian's opinion and language Non vincimur cum offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur He who by his Adversaries help and concluding Arguments gains the knowledge of Truth is in that good Father's opinion not conquered but instructed But if the Intelligent Reader discover any error in these Papers and can and will really make it appear to be so let him call it what he will Victory or Instruction I shall thankfully submit and both love that truth and him for the discovery of it 3. I know that this Tract of mine as every one of the like nature is already prohibited and damned at Rome for the Rules presix'd to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum contrived by the Authority of the Trent Council declare all Books of Controversies between Catholicks and Hereticks Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited and damned neither to be had nor read by any Papist under pain of Excommunication and many other Penalties contained in their Canons Papal Constitutions and their Expurgatory Indices So that although our blessed Saviour by his holy Spirit in the Gospel Command all even the Common people for to those he writes to Examin and try all things to use that understanding and discretion God has given us to distinguish truth from error for that 's evidently the meaning of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things as scher and learned Papists confess and when we have done so then we must hold fast that which is good I say in this Case in the choice of our Religion wherein the Eternal weal or woe of our Souls is concerned though Christian prudence require it and our blessed Saviour by his Apostle Command that we should not believe every Spirit but try before we
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