BEfore I come to a particular and distinct Examination of the several parts and para­graphs of this Impious Popish Bull, I shall in general observe,

1. That Pius V. was not the first or only Pope, Observ. 1. who usurped this Extravagant and Antichristian power over Kings and Emperors; to damn, depose, and deprive them of all their Royal Rights and Im­perial [Page 8] Jurisdiction; for both his Predecessors and Successors approved, and with prodigious pride and impiety, exercis'd such power. That this may ap­pear, I shall give the Reader some Instances, extant upon Record, in their own Popish Annals and Hi­stories.

1. Pope Carolus Sigonius de Regno Italiae, lib. 3. pag. 58. Constantine in a Council of Italian Bi­shops (it was about the Year 711.) Anathema­tises all who deny'd the worshipping of Ima­ges, and Omnium Consensu, omnes qui Imaginibus ve­nerationem negarem, dam­nati; & Philippicus ip­se Nominatim, Diro in eum composito Carmi­ne, Poenis Inferorum de­votus. Ibid. particularly, and by name damns the Emperor Philippicus to the Torments of Hell. So Carolus Sigonius tell us, and Martinus Polonus, and the Fasciculus Temporum concur with him.

2. After Pope Constantine, Gregory the second, and Gregory the third, succeed Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae. l. 9. p. 219. Extabant praeclara Gre­gorii 2. & 3. exempla, qui Leoni Isauro Imperatori, Sacris Interdicere, & Ju­ratâ Italiae obedientiâ spo­liare non dubitârant, uno [...]o Crimine, quod Imagini­bus se Inimicum praebuisset.; and both of them Excommunicate the Emperor Leo Isau­rus, for this only Crime, because he was a­gainst worshipping of Images; and though the Italians had sworn Allegiance to him, yet they null that Oath: And the Historian commends these Actions of those two Popes, as excellent Examples for Posterity. And Platina says, that Gregory the third Gregorius 3. Leo­nem Imperio & Commu­nione fidelium privat. Plat. in vita Greg. 3. Excommunicated the Emperor Leo, and deprived him of his Empire.

3. To Gregory the third, succeeded Pope Zachary, and (if Gratian say true) he Zacharias Papa Regem Francorum, non tam pro ejus Iniquitatibus, quamquod erat inutilis de­posuit: & Francigenas à juramento fidelitatis ab­solvit. Gratian. Can. A­lius. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. deposed Childe­ricus King of France, and absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and gives his Kingdom to Pipin: And this he did, not for the great crimes of Childeric, but because he was unprofitable, and unfit for the Government; not that he was Insufficient (says the Non quod insuffici­ens sed quod dissolutus e­rat cum mulieribus, & effoeminatus. Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis. Gloss) but be­cause [Page 9] he was Effeminate, and dissolute with Women. And from this Canon, Joh. Semeca (the Non quod Insuffi­ciens sed quod dissolutus e­rat cum Mulicribus, & Effoeminatus, Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis. Glossator) infers, That the Pope may de­pose the Emperor; and proves it by citing o­ther Canons, And by the Authority of Pope Gloss. ibid. verbo Alius. Gelasius, who tells Anastasius the Emperor, That he had power to Depose him, and proves it from the Example of this Pope Zachary. I know, that what Gratian, and the Canonist, say, of Pope Zachary's Deposing Childeric, is evidently untrue, (and by many Vid. Joh. Launoi­um Epist. Tom. 7. p. 117, 118, &c. & p. 245, 246, &c. Hottomanni Fran­co-Galliam, cap. 13. p. 96, 97, 98. demon­strated so to be) yet it stands uncensur'd in their last and best Vid. Edit. Paris 1612. & 1618. Edition of the Canon Law, which Pope Gregory XIII. Vid. Bullam Gre­gorij 13. dat. Romae 1. Die Julij 1580. approved and publish'd, as most correct. And they further tell us, That Clement VIII. published an Vide Indicem Li­brorum prohibitorum Lusitanicum Olysipone, 1624. p. 350. in Carolo Molinaeo. Exact Correction of all the Glosses and Additions to the Canon Law, and yet this of Pope Zachary's deposing Childeric (and, what the Gloss says of it) is neither left out, nor any way censur'd. Whence it is evident, that they approve the Doctrine of deposing Kings, and (having no just reason for it) forge Instances to prove it.

4. Pope Hildebrand, or Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae Anno 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. Gregory VII. deposeth the Emperor Henry IV. by the Authority given Potestate à Deo data Ligandi & Solven­di in Coelo, & in Terra. Ibid. by God, (as he says) of binding and loosing both in Heaven and Earth: And then he Omnes Christia­nos à vinculo Juramenti, quod sibi faciunt, aut fa­cient, absolvo, & ut nul­lus ci serviat, sicut Regi, interdico. Ibid. §. 1. ab­solves his Subjects from their Oath of Fidelity, and then prohibits them to obey him. This Bull is da­ted at Rome, Anno Domini 1075. and five years after he [...]xcommunicates, and Deposes him [Page 10] again 1080. And implores the Assistance of Pe­ter and Paul, in this his Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor; that the World may Vt Mundus Intel­ligat, quia si potestis in Coe­lo ligare & solvere, pote­stis in Terra Imperia, Reg­na, Principatus, Marchi­as, Ducatus, Comitatus, & Omnium Hominum pos­sessiones, pro meritis tollere, Vnicuique & Concedere. In dicto Bullario Roman, Bullae Excommunicationis. Hen. 4. §. 10. p. 51. Col. 1. know, that as they have power to bind and loose in Heaven; so they have power on Earth to give and take away Empires, Kingdoms, Principa­lities, Dukedoms, Earldoms, and (according as they shall deserve, and he is Sive Roman. Pon­tificem Supremum in Ec­clesiâ Dei Judicem. Ita Gregorius 13. in Bulla data Romae, 8 Apr. 1575. In Ecloge Bullarum Lugduni. 1582. p. 359. Col. 2. Judge of that) the possessions of all men. This power, he says, Peter had; and so he, and the Bishops of Rome have it too, and that from God, as Vicars of Christ, and Peter' s Successors. And so by this most Er­roneous and Impious Doctrine, the Popes have a Power (which neither Peter, nor any, nor all the Apostles ever had) to dispose of all mens Temporal Estates in the World, whether they be Supream or Subjects.

5. After this, Pope Gregory IX. Vide Bullam. 13. Gregorij 9. datam Ro­mae. Anno 1239. In Bul­lario Romano, Tom. 1. p. 89, 90. Excommuni­cates the Emperor Friderick II. Absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, lays an Interdict on all his Cities, Castles, and Vil­lages, Excommunicates all that favour him, or any way assist or obey him, commands the German Bishops (upon pain of Excommu­nication) solemnly to publish this Excommu­nication with all their Impious Solemnities, ringing of Bells, lighting, and then extinguish­ing Candles, &c.

6. After this, Pope Vid. Constitutio­nem Ejus 3. dat. Lugdu­ni 1245. In Bullario Romano, Tom. 1. p. 94, 95. Innocent IV. (in the like form) Excommunicates and Deposes the said Frederick. The Lemma or Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus Damnatio & Ex­communicatio Frideri­ci. 2. Ibidem., The Damnation and Excommu­nication [Page 11] of Frederick II. &c. And least this might be thought a rash and inconsiderate Act of the Pope, he himself tells us, That Cum Fraribus & Sacro Concilio, delibera­tione diligenti habitâ. Ib. dictae Constitutionis. §. 6. Bullarij dicti. p. 95. Col. 1. lin. ultimâ. he did diligently deliberate about it, with his Bre­thren (the Cardinals he means) and the Sacred Council, the General Council of Lions.) I know, that Matthew Paris says, that he pub­lish'd that Excommunication in that Council, not without the Non sine Omni­um audientium & Cir­cumstantium stupore & horrore. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Annum 1245. p. 668. lin. 33. Horror and Amazement of all who heard it. But Platina tells us, That it was done by the Fridericum Omni­um Consensu Imperio & Regnis privavit. Platina in vita Innocentij 4. p. 209. Col. 1. Edit. Col. Agripp. 1626. general and concurrent consent of the Council. And Innocent himself expresly says, That it was done ( Friderick Excommunicate) by the Quem (Fridericum) Concilium Generale Lug­dunense Cassaverat & Con­demnaverat. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad An. 1250. p. 773. lin. ultimâ. Council it self; (and therefore the Major part must concur) and if it was not so, that Pope was not only fallible, but actually false: And it is a considerable Observation which Matthew Paris has, (and therefore I shall not omit it) when he tells us— That some did positively affirm, (and he believed it) that A nonnullis affir­mative dicebatur, quod Dominus Papa sitienter & super Omnia desiderabat, Fridericum (quem mag­num Draconem vocabat) pessundare, ut ipso suppedi­tato & Conculcaeo, Reges Francorum & Angliae, a­liósque Christianitatis Re­ges, (quos omnes Regulos & Serpentulos esse dicebat) faciliùs, Exemplo dicti Friderici perterritos, Con­culcaret, & Bonis suis, ac Praelatos eorum, ad Libi­tum spoliaret. Matth. Pa­ris in Hen. 3. ad dictum Annum 1250. p. 774. lin. 2. &c.Innocent IV. did above all things earnestly desire to ruin the Emperor Friderick, ( whom he called the great Dragon) that, he being trampled upon, the King of France, England, and other Christian Kings, (whom he call'd diminutive Kings, and little Serpents) affrighted with the sad Fate of Friderick, might more easily be kept under, and they and their Prelates spoiled of their Goods, and by him plundered. So that although he, and other Popes did pretend, (as appears by their Bulls) that they deposed Kings for the Extir­pation of Heresie, the Preservation of the Ca­tholick [Page 12] Faith, and Christian Religion; yet 'tis evident to any intelligent and impartial Judge of their Actions, that it was their prodigious ambition and covetousness, their inordinate and erroneous desire of Dominion, of Rule and Riches, which made them usurp and ex­ercise a power to depose Kings and Empe­rors, which St. Peter (from whom they pretend to have it) never had, nor pretended to.

7. Pope Paul III. Vide Bullam. 7. Pauli. 3. dat. Romae 3. Cal. Sept. Anno. 1535. In Bullario Romano. Tom. 1. p. 514. Editionis Ro­mae 1638. Excommunicates, Curses, Deposes and Damns Henry VIII. of England, and all who adhere to him, favour or obey him; absolves his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance; commands them all, under pain of Excommunication, not to obey him, or any Mandantes, ut ab Henrici Regis, suorúmque Officialium, Judicum & Magistratuum quorum­cunque Obedientâ penitùs & omninò recedant, nec illas in superiores recog­noscant, néque eorum Mandatis Obtemperent. Dictae Bullae. §. 10. Magistrate or Officer under him; nor to acknowledge the King or any of his Judges or Offi­cers to be their Superiors. And further (with a strange Impiety and Impudence) he declares King Henry and his Complices and Favourers, and their Children and Descendents to be In­famous, incapable to be Witnesses, make Wills, or be Heirs to any; Incapable to do a­ny legal Act, and that in any Cause Et Nulli ipsis, sed Ipsi aliis super quocunque debito, & negotio, tam Civili, quam Criminali, de jure respondere tenean­tur. Ibid. §. 11. of Debt, or any other Cause Civil or Criminal, none should be bound to answer them, and yet they bound to an­swer every body. And to omit the rest, (for I shall at the end of these Observations, set down the whole Bull) he commands the Praelatis quóque & Caeteris personis Ecclesia­sticis mandat sub poenis in Bulla Contentis, quatenùs de Regno Angliae disce­dant, [...] revertantur, do­nec dicti Excommunicati, privati, maledicti, & damnati meruerim abso­lutionis Beneficium. Ibid. §. 13. p. 516. Eccle­siasticks (Secular and Regular) to quit the King­dom, and not to return, till the Persons Excommu­nicate, deprived, cursed and damn'd (the King [Page 13] and all his Loyal Subjects he means) be absol­ved from their Censures. This Bull, though fram'd and ready to be publish'd, yet the Ex­ecution of it was suspended for three years, and then actually published in the Year 1538. which was the fifth year of Pope Paul III. as appears by the Date of it, in the aforesaid Bul­lary. And when it was published, as it was in itself highly Impious, so (to Hen. VIII and his Loyal Subjects) it was ridiculous; and all the Effect it had was, that it increased their hate and contempt of the Antichristian pride and folly of its Author. It appeared (what indeed it was) Brutum fulmen, and that King had too great a courage and understanding, to be frighted with an Ignis fatuus, Papal Squibs and Wild-fire, which could neither warm or burn him.

8. Lastly; as the Popes preceeding Pius V. so those who followed approved and (so far as they were able) put in practise that execrable Doctrine of Deposing Kings. Pope Grego­ry XIII. did immediately succeed Pius V. and renues and confirms his Bull for deposing Queen Elizabeth, and absolving her Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance (as is testified not only by Cambdens Eliza­beth. lib. 3. p. 360, 361. ad Annum 1588. Cambden, but by the Romish Priests themselves, (the See a Book with this Title— Impor­tant Considerations, &c. written by the Secular Priests here in England, printed Anno. 1601. and reprinted with other Tracts, with this Title— A Collection of se­veral Treatises concerning the Reasons and Occasion of Penel Laws, &c. Lon­don 1675. In which Col­lection, pag. 76. the Se­cular Priests tell us, that Pope Gregory. 13. did ex­communicate Queen E­lizabeth. Seculars, who seem'd most moderate) and in prosecution of that damnatory Sentence, the said Pope Gre­gory did constitute Fitz-Gerald (an Irish Rebel against the Queen) General of all the Irish Re­bels; [Page 14] that so he and they by Fire and Sword might Execute the Sentence of those two Popes, deposing that Queen. This is expresly testify'd by Fitz-Gerald Gregorius. 13. in Ducem ac Generalem hu­jus belli Capitaneum, Nos Elegit, ut ex ipsius Diplo­mate constat: Quod tanto magis fecit, quia ejus Prae­decessor Pius. 5. Elizabe­tham haeresium Patronam Omni Regia Potestate pri­vaverat. Vid. Edictum Illustriss. D. Jac. Geral­dini, de Justitia ejus bel­li, quod in Hibernia pro side gerit. 'Tis Extant in the History of the Irish Re­bellion. Lond. 1680. in the Appendix, p. 8. himself, in an E­dict publish'd by him, after he was General, declaring the Justice of that Irish War, which (he says) was undertaken for the Catholick Faith, and restoring it in Ireland. To Grego­ry. XIII. Sixtus Quintus immediately succeeds, and confirms the damnatory Sentences of his two Predecessors, and (as he who well knew, tells us) Excommunicates and Cambdens Eliza­beth. lib. 3. p. 360, 361. deposes the Queen, Ab­solves her Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity, and published a Croisado, as against Turks and Insidels (indeed as afterwards evidently ap­pear'd against England and Queen Elizabeth) and gave (what he Never had [...]o give) plenary Indulgence to all who should assist in that War. Nor is this all; Cardinal Allen Cambden ibid. lib. 3. p. 364. writ a Trai­terous and Seditious Book, to Exhort all the Eng­lish and Irish Papists, to joyn with the Spanish Forces (against their Queen and Country) under the Prince of Parma: and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen ( with that Book, and his own Bull) into the Low-Countries, and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Ant­verpe, to be sent into England. Were it ne­cessary, many things now might be said, per­tinent to this purpose; but (I suppose) the Instances already given, will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Imp [...]tial Persons, That Pope Pius. V. was neither the first nor [Page 15] last, who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes; seeing several of his Prede­cessors and Successors, for above. 600. years, have owned, approved, and (as they had op­portunity) put that Power in practise: This in General premis'd, I come now to consider the Bull of Pius. V. wherein he damns and de­poseth Queen Elizabeth; wherein two things occur very considerable;

• 1. The [...], or Title prefix'd to the Bull.
• 2. The Particulars contain'd in it.

For the first; Observ. 2. the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus: — The Damnation of Elizabeth, &c. where, though Damnation may seem a very hard word (as indeed it is, in the sense they use it, as shall by and by ap­pear) yet it is not unusual; but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature: So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent. IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick. II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus— Damnatio & De­positio Friderici. 2. Vid. Bullarium Romanum, Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 94. Col. 7. Edita erat Bulla ista Anno 1245. The Damnation & Deposition of Friderick. II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry. VIII. the Title prefix'd to it is— Damnatio Hen. 8, ejúsque Fautorum, &c. In Bullario Romano. ibid. p. 514. Col. 2. Edita di­cta Bella, Anno 1535. & postea 1538. The Damnation of Henry VIII. and his Favourers, &c. So that Pius. V. Damning Queen Elizabeth, was not singular (though Impious) he had some of his Predecessors; Forms to follow. I say, his Predecessors; for I do not find that any Bishops in the World (save those of Rome) ever used such Unchristian, and indeed Anti-christian Forms [Page 16] of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors. And it is observable, and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant, (of which there is a vast Vid. Bullarium Ro­manum Lugduni. 1655. in. 4. Tomis in Folio, & Eclogen Bullarum & motu propriorum Pii. 4. &c. Lugduni. 1582. 8 ⁰. & Novam Collectionem, &c. Eman. Roder. Tur­noni. 1609. fol. where in that one Volume you have above. 500. Bulls, with the Names of. 46. Popes, who published them. num­ber) that the Popes of later Ages, when they go a­bout to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsur­ped Power; they usually cite Vid. Constitut. 22 Julij Papae. 2. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 378. & Constitut. 81. Grego­rij. 13. In dicto Bullario Tom. 2. p. 348. vide Ex­travag. Communes, 1. 5. Tit. 9. cap. Unigenitus 2. the Bulls and Con­stitutions of their Predecessors, who had done the like; not for matter of fact barely, but to prove a Right; that because their Predecessors had done so formerly, therefore they (who succeeded in the same Power) might do it too. Now, although to Argue thus, à Facto ad Jus, be evidently incon­sequent and irrational: (no better than this— Pe­ter ( de facto) deny'd and forswore his Master: Ergo, His Successors ( de jure) may do so to.) Yet, if their Principles were true, (as I suppose they may think them) such Arguing would be more concluding. For, Pope Leo. X. expresly Docuissemus cum (Lutherum) Luce clarius, Sanctos Rom. Pontifices Praedecessores nostros, in suis Canonibus seu Consti­tutionibus Nunquam Er­rasse. Vide Bullam Apo­stolicam Leonis 10. con­tra Errores Lutheri, & sequacium. Dat: Romae 17 Cal. Julij, An. 1520. & Pontificatus sui, 8 ⁰. Apud Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 715. &c. And his Predecessor, Julius. 2. says as much for the Church of Rome,—S. Sancta Ecclesia Roma­na, Magistra fidei, Om­nium Errorum Expers, u­nica, immaculata, &c. Constitutio. 27. Julij. 2. data Anno. 1512. In Bul­lario Romano Tom. 1. p. 384. affirms, and pub­lickly declares, in one of their General Councils, that it is more clear than light it self; That None of his Predecessors, Popes of Rome, Did ever Err, in any of their Canons or Constitutions. Now if this were true, (as it is evidently false, and his Asserting it, an Argument not only of his Fallibility, but of his great Error and Folly) That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd, then they might with more Security follow them; for certainly, it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide. Especially if it be true which they tell us.

For 1. In their Laws and Canons, approved by their Supream Authority, and retained in publick [Page 17] use in their Church, we are told, Sic Omnes Aposto­licae Sedis Sanctiones ac­cipiendae sunt, tanquam Ip­suss Divini Petri voce Fir­matae sint. Can. sic Omnes 2. dist. 19. & Ibid. Can. 3. 4. &c. That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received, as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them: This (as Gratian there tells us) was Pope Agatho' s Sentence, & is Received into the Body of their Canon Law, Revised, Corrected, and Purged from all things Contrary to Catho­lick Verity: So Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae. 1. Jul. 1580. Jur. Can. praefixam. Gregory XIII. says, and confirms it. Whence it evidently follows; that (in Pope Gregory's Judgment) This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity: And in the same place it is farther declared for Law, (Pope Ste­phen. I. is cited as Author of that Sentence) That, Quicquid Statuit, Quicquid Ordinat Roma­na Ecclesia, Ab Omnibus perpetno & Irrefragobili­tèr est Observandum. Ibid. Can. Enimvero. 4. Dist. 19 Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Consti­tute, it is (without all Contradiction) perpetually to be Observed.

2. Though this be (beyond all truth and rea­son) highly erroneous; yet the Jesuits (of late) have gone much higher, and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris, publickly Christum ita Caput Ecclesiae Agnoscimus, ut il­lius regimen, dum in Coelos abiit, primum Petro, dein successoribus commiserit, & eandem quam habebat Ipse infallibilitatem, concesse­rit, quoties ex Cathedrâ loqueretur. Datur, ergo, in Eccles. Rom. Controver­siarum fidei Judex Infalli­bilis, etiam Extra Concili­um generale, tum in Quae­stionibus Juris & Facti. Vid. Exposit. Theseos. in Coll. Claromontano propositae. 12. Dec. 1661. maintain'd these two Positions. 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors, the same Infallibility, he him­self had, so oft as they spoke è Cathedra. 2. That (even out of a General Council) He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith, both in Questions of Right and Fact. This (as to the main of it, though Erroneous and Impious) is maintain'd by others, as well as Jesuits. F. Gregory de Rives, a Capuchin Priest, tells us (and his Book is approved by the General, and several others of his Order, and by Father D. Roquet, a Dominican, and Doctor of Divinity, &c.) Si Christi Autho­ritas non penderet à Conci­lio, si adhuc in terris vive­ret, sed Omni Concilio Ma­jor esset. Eâdem Ratione, & Pontificis Authoritas, quae ipsius Christi Vicaria est, Concilio superior est—Privilegium Infallibilis veritatis, non Concitio, sed Pontisici à Christo Collatum est. Luc. 22. 32. Gr. de Rives Epitome Concil. in Principio, praelud. 5. That as the Authority of Christ (our blessed Saviour) if he were now on Earth, were [Page 18] greater than all Councils, so by the Same Reason, the Authority of the Pope (who is Christ's Vicar) is greater than all Councils too. That the Priviledge of Infal­libility was given to the Pope, not to Councils; and then Concludes; That the Ecclesia Romana est Judex Controversiarum in Rebus Fidei, & Ipsius Determinationes Sunt De Fide. Ibid. Praelud. 9. Edit. Lugd. Anno. 1663. Church of Rome (he means the Pope) is Judge of Controversies, and all her Desi­nitions and Determinations are De Fide. Thus De Rives. And three or four years before him, Lud. Bail (a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary) ex­presly affirms, That the Verbum Dei, vel est Scriptum in Scripturis: vel non scriptum, Traditiones: vel Explicatum, cum dubia in verbo Scripto aut Tra­dito Explicantur. Quod fit Praesertim per Papam, sive Extra Concilia, seu in Con­ciliis. Isque modus ultimus Magis probat us est, & Ma­jori suavitate ei Plures ac­quiescunt, ut nihil ulterius Contendendum existiment. Lud. Bail in Print Appa­ratus ad summam Conc. De tripliciverbo Dei. Word of God is threefold. 1. His written Word, in Scripture. 2. His unwritten Word, in the Traditions of the Church. 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd; when doubtful passages in Scri­pture or Tradition are explain'd, and their meaning de­termin'd by the Pope, whether in, or out of Councils; and this (he says) is the most approved way, in which men acquiesce, and think they need look no further. And hence he Infers, That seeing this is so; we Quae cum it a sint, nec Nos debemus vereri e­jus ductum sequi, In Do­ctrinâ Fidei & Morum, ejus Judicio Nos sistere, & scripta Omnia corrigenda submittere. Idem in Calce praefationis ad Lecto­rem, Tom. 1. praefixam. ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners, but acquiesce in his Judgment, and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him. I neither will nor need Cite any more Au­thorities, to prove the aforesaid Particulars; That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Empe­rors (especially if they be Hereticks) and think they have (as Christ's Vicars) a just Prerogative and Power to do it. Sure I am, that these Positions (though Erroneous and Impious) are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits, Canonists, Vide Aquinatem. 2. 2. Quaest. 11. Art. 3. Vtrum Haeretici sint tolle­randi? negat. & ibid. Quest. 12. Art. 2. Vtrum Princeps propter Apostasi­am à fide, amittat Domi­nium in Subditos, ita quod ei obedire non Tenentur? He affirms it, and says—Ejus Subditi à Dominio ejus & Juramento Fideli­tatis (si sit Excommuni­catus) Ipso facto liberan­tur. Schoolmen, and their Followers (which are very many) receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best, and (as they themselves say) their most Correct Editions, [Page 19] and approved, and (when they had opportunity) practis'd by (their Supream Powers) their Popes and General Councils. I would not be mistaken; I do not say that all who now do, or for this Six hundred years last past, have liv'd in the Commu­nion of the Church of Rome, either do, or did ap­prove such Papal Positions or Practices. I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris, and many in o­ther Countries, have publickly Declared their dis­belief and dislike of them; Especially in Vid. Johan. Aven­tinum Annal: Bojorum. Lib. 5. 6. 7. Carol. Sigo­nium de Regno Italiae. Matth. Paris. &c. Ad An. 1078. p. 10. 11. & p. 13. lin. 1. & p. 668. lin. 30. & 773. lin. 49. &p. 774. lin. 1. 2. & p. 875. where R. Grosthead (for his Ty­rannical Usurpations) calls the Pope Anti­christ. Germa­ny, in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. &c. not only private Persons, but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depo­sitions of their Emperors, not only Injust and Impious, but Antichristian. I grant also, That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum (if some have rightly told the Number) has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors, who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings: And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent; yet I shall neither deny nor doubt, but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome, who dislike this Doctrine. But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome, so long as her Go­verning and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it. For, 1. Father Remonstrant: Hi­bernorum, part. 1. Cap. 3. &c. Caron himself tells us, that (notwithstanding his Book, and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings) The Divines of Lovane, The Pope's Nuncio, the Cardinals, four or five Popes, ( Paulus. V. Pius. V. Alexander. VII. In­nocentius. X. (he might easily have reckon'd many [Page 20] more) did condemn his Doctrine, The Inquisitors damn'd his Book, and his Superiors Excommunicate him. 2. It is confessed, That the Supream Infal­lible Power of their Church, resides either in the Pope, or Council, or both together; And 'tis al­so certain, That their Popes, in their approved, and (in Volentes (verba sunt Gregorij Papae. 9.) ul hac Tantum Compila­tione Vniversi ut antur, & in Judiciis & Scholis, &c. Bulla Greg. 9. Decretal. praefixa. publick use) received Canon Law, in their Authentick Bulls, (publish'd by themselves) in their General Councils (and Innocent. 4. Ex­communicates. Fridè­rick. 2. in the General Council at Lions, Omni­um Consensu, &c. Platina in vita Innocent. 4. And Pope Innocent himself said constantly that the Council of Lions Ex­communicated and De­posed that Emperor. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. Ad Ann. 1250. p. 773. lin. 58. 59. And Pope Pasch. 2. tells us, That he Ex­communicated the Em­peror Hen. 4. Judicio To­tius Ecclesiae. Carol. Sigo­nius de Regno Italiae. l. 9. p. 237. lin. 18. Observ. 3. with their Consent) have approved, and (for this Six hundred years last past) many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings; nor has the Church of Rome (I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it) by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it, as doubtless she would, had she indeed disliked it. Quae non prohibet, cum possit, jubet. If any man think otherwise, and can really shew me, that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved, or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine: I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake, and be thankful to him for a Civility, which (at present) I really believe I shall never receive. However, Grata supervenient quae non sperantur.

3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius. V. (and his Predecessors in the like Cases) calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull, The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth; The next Query will be, What that hard word signifies, and what they mean by it, in their Bulls? For the Solution of which doubt, and Satisfaction to the Query: 1. I take it to be cer­tain and confess'd; That the word Damnum (from [Page 21] whence Damnation comes) signifies a Damnum à demendo, quia damnum est Rei di­minutio unde Damna Lu­nae, apud Gellium. Noct. Atticarum lib. 20. Cap. 8. And Varro; Dam­num à demptione lib. 4. de Legibus. So Isiodore lib. 5. Orig. Cap. 22. dimi­nution, or Damnum est a­missio eorum quae habueras. Quinctilianus Decla­mat. 120. And a good Lawyer tells me, that—Damnare; est rem sine remedio sublevandi tormentis seu Ignominiae sententialitor deputare. Panormitan. in Cap. Damnamus. in. 2. No­tab. de summâ Trinit. & side Catholicâ. loss of some good things, had and en­joyed before, or of a right to future good things, and then Damnation (as to our present Case) will be a judicial sentence, which (by way of punish­ment) imposes such loss and diminution. 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here (as loss of Honours, Liberty, Lands or Life) or of Spiritual and Eternal things, (as Heaven and Salvation) hereafter; so the Damna­tion also (according to the Nature of the sen­tence, and the mischief intended by it) may be Temporal or Eternal, or both; if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal. 3. I say then (and I hope to make it evident) that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull, and Ex­communication (so far as the malice and inju­stice of an Usurped Power could) endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen, was not only Temporal, but also Spiritual and Eternal. This the word Damnation, in the [...], or Title of the Bull, (in their Popish Construction) intends and signifies. For the Temporal mischiefs in­tended to be brought upon that Good Queen, there is no question; they are all particularly named in the Bull it self, as we shall see anon. For the Spiritual, that is, a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness, and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul; that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excom­munication, is now to be proved. And here it is to be Considered,

[Page 22] 1. That they constantly say, and (having strong Delusion) possibly may believe it; That Hereticks (and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull) dying Excommunicate, (as that Queen did, and all true Protestants do) are Eternally Damn'd. For, 1. A very great Excommunicatus est Membrum Diaboli. Lindewood ad Cap. Se­culi Principes. verbo. Re­conciliationis. De Im­munit. Ecclesiae. Canonist of our own Nation, (while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here) tells us, That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil. And for farther proof of this, he Cites Gratian. Can. Om­nis Christianus. 32. Caus. 11. Quaest. 3. Gratian and their Canon Law, (and he might have Cited other as pertinent pla­ces in Gratian) who tells us, in another Canon Excommunicatio est Aeternae Mortis Dam­natio. Idem Gratian. Can. Nemo. 41. Caus. 11. Quaest. 3., That Excommunication is a Damnation to Eternal Death. And John Semeca the Glossator gives us their meaning of it; That it is certainly true, when the Est Perpetua Damna­tio cum ab Excommunicato contemnitur. Gloss. ad dictum Can. verbo mor­tis. Person Excommunicate is incorrigible, and con­temns the Excommunication, (as for my part I real­ly do contemn all their Excommunications, as Bru­ta fulmina, which neither do, nor can hurt any honest Protestant) so that by their Injust Law, and most uncharitable Divinity, not only Queen Eli­zabeth, but all Protestants (who are every Year Excommunicated by the Pope, in their Bulla This Bulla Coenae often (with some alte­rations) occurs in Bul­lario Romano. vid. Con­stit. 25. Julii. 2. Tom. 1. pag. 382. Edit. Romae. 1638. & Constit. 63. Pauli. 5. Tom. 3. p. 83. ubi reliqua, hujus Bul­lae Exemplaria dicto Bullario comprehensa, indicantur. Coenae Domini) are Eternally damned, and that è Ca­thedra. A Sentence Erroneous and Impious; and (though it be the Popes, whom they miscall Infal­lible) inconsistent with Truth, or Christian Charity.

2. But we have (both for Learning and Au­thority) a far greater Author than Lindwood or Gratian, and (in our days) long after them; I mean Cardinal Baronius; who tells us— [Page 23] Non modo deponi, sed etiam Excommunicari, & in Aeterno Examine Damnari Decrevit. Ba­ronius Annal. Tom. 8. ad An. Christi. 593. num. 86. That Pope Gregory. VII. did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate, and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd. And for this he Gregor. 7. lib. 4. Epist. 2. & 23. & lib. 8. Epist. 21. Cites Pope Gregory's own Epistles, who surely best knew his own mind, and the meaning of his own Decree.

3. But we have greater Authors and Authority for this, than Baronius; for Pope Paschal. II. tells us, Henricus. 4. pri­mum à Gregorio Papâ, de­in ab Vrbano, Postremo à Nobis, Judicio Totius Ec­clesiae, Perpetuo Anathe­mate Obligatus est. Car. Sigonius de Regno Ita­liae. lib. 9. pag. 237. That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council; and adds, That by the Judg­ment of the whole Church, he lay bound under An E­ternal Anathema. And after this Pope Paul. III. Henricum, Ejús (que) fautores, Adhaerentes, &c. Excommunicatos Decer­nimus, cosque Anathema­tis, Maledictionis, & Ae­ternae Damnationis mu­crone percutimus. In Bulla Damnationis Hen. 8. Dat. Romae. Cal. Sept. Ann. 1535. Damns (thats the word) and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII. and all his Favourers and Adherents; And we smite them (saith he) with the Sword of an Anathema, Malediction, and Eternal Damnation. In the Year 1459. Pius. II. ( with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council, at Mantua, Excommunicates and Damns all those (even Si Imperiali, Re­gali, aut Pontificali Dig­nitate praefulgeant. §. 3. dictae Bullae. Kings and Emperors) who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council, and that they shall be punish'd as Poenis quae Loesae Majestatis & Haereticae pravitatis reis Imponun­tur. Ibidem. Traytors and Hereticks. Pope Julius. II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor, as to all the Punishments contain'd in it; Excommunicates and Curses all Persons, Ecclesiastical and Secular, of what Dignity soever (though Kings) who shall offend against that Constitution; and Decrees that they shall have Decernentes eos pro Schismaticis, & de Ca­tholicâ fide male sen­tientibus, cum Da­than & Abiron partem & Damnationem habere: Constit. 22. Pii. 2. §. 6. vid. P. Crab. Concil. Tom. 3. p. 690. Col. 2. & ibi forman—sub paenâ Maledictionis Ae­ternae. their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron. The Damnation then in­tended and threatned in this Impious Bull of Pi­us V. (as in other Papal Bulls of the like nature) is not only some Temporal loss and damage (though [Page 24] that also be included and expressed) but the Eter­nal Damnation of Body and Soul. Which further appears by that Famous (or indeed Infamous, Er­roneous and Ridiculous) Constitution of Boni­face VIII. wherein having said, That there is but one Catholick Church, out of which, there is no Sal­vation; and that our Blessed Saviour made Peter and his Successors his Vicarij, Vice-Gerents, and Heads of that Church; he adds, That Porro subesse Rom. Pontifici Omni humanae Creaturae declaramus, di­cimus, definimus, & pro­nunciamus Omnino esse de Necessitate Salutis. Con­stit. Bonifacii. 8. dat. Romae. Ann. 1301. Pont. Ann. 8. Cap. unam san­ctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Commu­nes. whoever are not of that Church, and in Subjection and Obedient to the Pope, can have no Salvation. And Pius. V. in this very Bull, expresly says the same. For, 1. He says, That out of the Apostolick Ecclesia Apostoli­ca, extra quam nulla est Salus. In Prin. Bullae. Pii. 5. Church (he means evi­dently his own Roman Church) there is no Salva­tion. 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an Declaramus Eli­zabetham Haereticam ei­que Adhaerentes Anathe­matis sententiam, incurris­se, esseque a Christi Cor­poris Vnitate Praecisos. I­bid. §. 3. Here­tick, that she and all her Adherents had Incurr'd an Anathema and Malediction, were Excommunicate, and cut off from the Body of Christ. So that Queen Eli­zabeth, and all her Loyal Protestant Subjects, who never were, nor could be, (as without great Er­ror and Impiety they could not) subject to the Pope, nor Members of his Apostolical Church, are (by this Bull) Eternally Damn'd.

4. But this is not all; for we have greater Evi­dence, that by the word Damnation in their Bulls, wherein all Hereticks, (Protestants you may be sure, who without Truth or Charity, they call so) are Curs'd and Excommunicated, they do and must mean Eternal Damnation. For, 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran Cum de necessitate Salutis sit, Omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse, prout Divinae Scripturae & Sanctorum Patrum Testimonio edoce­mur, & Constitutione Bo­nifa [...]ii Papae. 8. quae in­cipit Vnam Sanctam, de­claratur.—Constitu­tionem Ipsam Sacro prae­senti Concilio Approbante Innovamus, & Approba­mus. Conc. Lateran. sub Leone. 10. Sess. 10. apud P. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 697. Col. 1. Council, (which with them is General and Oecumenial) innovates and establish­eth (with the Approbation and Consent of that [Page 25] Council) the aforesaid Doctrine and Constitution of Pope Boniface. VIII. 2. The Trent Council does so too, and absolutely Anathematizes and Damns all those who do not believe their whole new Creed; (in which there is not one true Article, but all Erroneous, many Superstitious and Impi­ous) and tells us, It is the Catholick Contraria Omnia & Haereses, ab Ecclesia Damnatas & Anathema­tizatas Ego paritèr Ana­thematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, Extra quam Nemo Salvus esse Potest, quam veracitèr teneo, & ad Extremum vitae Spiritum, Constantis­simè retinere, spondeo, vo­veo, juro. Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. in Calce Cap. 12. p. 452. E­dit. Antverp. 1633. Faith, with­out the belief of which, no man can be saved, and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath, and Ana­thematize all who do not. And (which is further very considerable and pertinent to confirm what is abovesaid) they do in that Oath promise, vow, and swear to receive and imbrace Omnia à Concilijs Oecumenicis tradita, defi­nita, & Declarata, Indu­bitant [...]r recipio, & profite­or. Ibid. p. 452. All Things deli­vered, defined, and declared in their General Coun­cils, and All Apostolicas Tradi­tiones, reliqu [...]sque Ejus­dem Ecclesiae Constitutiones firmissimè admitto & am­plector. Ibid. p. 451. the Constitutions of their Church; For these Particulars are parts of that new Creed, to the Belief and Profession of which they are sworn. And the Trent Council it self (as well as the Pope in that Creed) Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. cap. 12. Proviside Bene­ficiis, &c. Teneantur fidei publicam sacere professio­nem in Rom. Ecclesiae Obe­dientiâ se Permansuros spondeant ac Jurent. p. 432. dictae Editionis. And that we may know that the Faith they are to profess and swear to, is the Creed of Pius. V. in the afore-named Edi­tion of the Council of Trent, at Antverp. 1633. Pius. 5. his Creed, and the Forma Juramenti Pro­fessionis Fidei, is placed immediately after that 12. Cap. Sess. 24. De Re­format. pag. 450. requires that they make such a Profession. Whence it evidently follows, that all their Bishops, all Regulars of what Order soever, who are provided of Monasteries, Religi­ous Houses, &c. All Canons and Dignitaries in their Church, all who have any Cure of Souls, and all who profess and teach any of the Liberal Arts, &c. (for all these are required to take that Oath) are sworn to receive, believe, and profess all the Desini­tions of the Lateran Council under Leo. X. and the Constitution of Pope Boniface. VIII. which denoun­ces Damnation to all those who submit not to the Pope, and imbrace not their Popish Religion; and hence it further, and as evidently follows, that not [Page 26] only Queen Elizabeth, but all good Protestants then, and ever since, (who neither did, nor with­out great Error and Impiety, could so submit to their Popes, or believe their New Creed) are, by their Papal and uncharitable Divinity, Eternally Damn'd. So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss, but the Eternal Damnation of Bo­dy and Soul, which is threatned, and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth, and such other Excom­munications of those whom they call Here­ticks.

4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull, Observ. 4. we are told by the Pope, That our Blessed Saviour com­mitted the Government of His Church (with all pleni­tude and fulness of Power) to Peter and his Successors. And that we might know, how great the Power was over all Kings and Kingdoms, he miserably misapplies a Text in Jer. 1. 10. Jeremy; and says— Petro & Successo­ribus, Ecclesiam, in pleni­tudine Potestatis gubernan­dam tradidit. Hunc unum super Omnes Gentes, & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit, qui Evellat, De­struat, Dissipet, Disperdat, plantet & aedificet; ut fide­les Salvos exhibeat Salva­tori. That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter alone a Prince, over All Nations, and All Kingdoms, to Pull up, and Throw down, to Dissipate and Destroy, to Plant and Build (in Ordine ad Spiritualia) in Order to the Sal­vation of his Faithful People; so that (if we may believe this Infallible Expositor) the same Power which God gave Jeremy over all Nations and King­doms, to pull up and destroy them; the very same did our blessed Saviour give to Peter and his Succes­sors. Nor is Pius. V. the only Pope who makes use of that Text to prove their extravagant Papal Power over Kings: Pope Alexander. III. having told some of his Brethren, how the Cum Ascenderemus Palfredum nostrum, Fride­ricus Imp. Stepham tenuit. &c. Constit. 8. Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. Emperor [Page 27] held his Stirrup when he mounted his Palfrey; In his next Constitution, (having said, That the Dili­gence of the Bishops and Pastors was necessary to pull up, and cut off Hereticks, and wicked men in the Church) he Cites the place of Jeremy to prove it; and says, That the Power over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, cast down, and destroy, was Gi­ven to Jeremy Deus Jeremiam, & in illo Evangelicum Sa­cerdotem instruxit dicens; Ecce Constitui Te super Gentes & Regna, ut Evel­las, destruas, disperdas, &c. quae Potestas imminet in Romano Antistite, qui à Christo, ut sit Caput Eccle­siae, accepit. Ibid. Constit. 9. p. 65. Col. 2., and In Him, to the Evangelical Priest, to Peter and his Successors, as he there ex­presly explains it. And Pope Paul. III. tells us; — Ejus Vices gerenics in terris, & in Sede Justi­tiae Constituti, Juxta Jere­miae Vaticinium, &c. super Omnes Reges Vniversae Terrae. In Bullâ Damna­tionis Hen. 8. data Rom. 1535. & 1538. That he was Vicar of Christ, our blessed Savi­our, and plac'd in the Throne of Justice Above All Kings in the whole World, According to the Prophecy of Jeremy; And then Cites the words of Jeremy be­fore mention'd. And (to omit others) Pope Bo­niface. VIII. Cites the same Text (though to as little purpose) to the same end; to prove the Spiritualis Potestas terrenam judicare debet, si bona non fuerit: sic Veri­ficatur Vaticinium Jere­miae, Constitui Te super Gentes, &c. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. de major. & Obed. Extrav. Commu­nes. Popes power above Kings, so as to punish and depose them. And before him Innocent. III. in his wild and irrational Epistle to the Emperor of Constan­tinople Cap. Solicit. 6. Extra. De Major. & O­bedientia., Cites the same Text of Jeremy, and a­nother ( Gen. 1. 16.) more impertinent (if that be possible) to prove the vast Power of Popes above all Deus Papam To­tius Orbis praecipuum ob [...]i­nere voluit Magistratum. Bonif. 8. in Bulla. 6. De­cretalium praesixa. Kings and Emperors. By all which, Papal Bulls and Constitutions (as by many others of the like nature) it may evidently appear, that they challenge a Power to depose Kings, and that they bring the Text of Jeremy as a ground and proof of it.

But although their Popes brag, That they have Dictum Bonif. 8. Cap. Licet Romanus. De Constitut. in. 6. Romanus Pontifex jura Omnia in Scrinio pectoris sui cense­tur habere. all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts, and that they are Supream and Infallible Judges in all [Page 28] Controversies of Faith; yet their whole Discourse and Deductions from the Text of the Prophet Je­remy, is inconsequent, and indeed ridiculous, and no way concerns either Peter, or any of his pre­tended Successors. For,

1. This Power which God gave to Jeremy, was Personal, to himself only, not hereditary or af­ter his death to be continued to any Successor; much less to Peter, who came above Six hun­dred years after. That the Popes of this or for­mer Ages, were Successors to Peter, both the Popes themselves, and Popish Authors univer­sally affirm; but (as yet) I have found none (ex­cept the Pope and some few of his Party) who say that either Peter, or any Pope, was Successor to Jeremy. It's true, Pope Alexander. III. (in the Place quoted a little before) says; That that Power over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up▪ dissipate, and destroy, &c. was (by God) given to Jeremy, and in Him to Peter. So that (by this wild Supposition) Peter succeeded into that Power, which before him, Jeremy had. But (notwithstanding his Infallibility) this is gratis dictum without any shadow or pretence of Rea­son: For he who succeeds into a Right which another possess'd before him, must do it either, 1. Per generationem & Jure Sanguinis; as a Son succeeds his Father, or the next Heir, In jus de­functi: and that Peter, or any Pope did this way succeed Jeremy, as none (with any reason) can, I suppose none will say. 2. Per Consecrationem & Jure Ordinis; so one Bishop succeeds another [Page 29] in the same Bishoprick. Neither could Peter succeed Jeremy this way; for Jeremy was never Bishop of Rome, or any other place; and then 'tis impossible that they should succeed him in a Place he never had, and be Successor to one who never was their Predecessor. 3. A man may be said to succeed another, who has a new Commission given him, to Execute an Office which (though intermitted) some had lo [...] before him. So suppose the King should give one a Commission to be High Constable of England, after the Place had been long void; he who had such Commission, may be said to succeed him, who had that Office last, though One or Two hundred years before. Now if the Pope (or any for him) can shew, that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the same Commissi­on, which God gave Jeremy, and set him over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, dissipate, and destroy, &c. (as Pope Pius. V. expresly says Regnans in Excel­sis ( i.e. Christus) Ecclesiam soli Petro & Successoribus tradidit Gubernandam. And then it immediate­ly follows—Hunc Vnum (Petrum scilicet) super Omnes Gentes, & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit, qui evellat, de­struat, dissipet, disperdat, plantet, &c. Bulla dicta in Principio.he did, in this His Impious Bull against Q. Elizabeth) then I will Confess, that in this Sense Peter may be called Jeremy's Successor. But that our blessed Saviour gave Peter any such Commission (though the Pope say it) is abso­lutely untrue; not only without any foundati­on or ground of Reason for it in Scripture, (and nothing else can prove it) but point blank a­against it. As our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this World, no Temporal Power or Dominion; so he neither exercis'd any such Power himself, nor gave Peter or his Apostles, (who, all of them [Page 30] had Equal Power with Peter) any such Pope Nicol. 1. (and he as Infallible as any of his Successors) tells us; That Ecclesia non habet Gladium nisi Spiritualem, qui non occi­dit, sed vivisicat. Luit­prandus in vita, Nicol. 1. Cap. 107. But he lived above. 800. years since, and though Gratian re­cords it for Law (Can. inter haec. 6. Caus. 33. Quaest. 2.) yet the Case is alter'd since, and the Gloss upon that Canon ( verbo Gladium) tells us, that the meaning is; that the Pope has not the Temporal Sword, Quo­ad Executionem only: the Power of the Temporal Sword belongs to the Emperor, but the Pope makes him Emperor, and gives him that Power: and this he proves out of a Decree of Pope Innocent 3. Cap. Venerabil. 34. Extra. De Elect. & Electi Potesta­te. Tem­poral Power over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, and dissipate, &c. All the Power they had was Spiritual; they could punish no man (un­less miraculously, which the Pope pretends not to) in his person, by loss of Life, or Liberty (by Imprisonment) nor in his purse, by imposing and exacting Pecuniary Mulcts; as has been, and might be farther demonstrated, were it now my business: Only (by the way) I crave leave to observe, That Pope Pius in this Bull, makes that Commission, which he says, our blessed Savi­our gave Peter, far larger than that which God gave Jeremy. For he tells us, 1. That our blessed Saviour did Hunc unum (Pe­trum scilicet) Principem Constituit, &c. Ibid. in dicta Bulla. Constitute Peter a Prince, to pull up, and destroy, &c. but there is no such thing in Jeremy's Commission. 2. That Peter was Con­stituted a Prince over Super Omnes Gen­tes, & Omnia Regna, I­bid. All Nations, and All King­doms; but Jeremy had not such Universal Pow­er, as is evident from the Jer. 1. 10. Text. But to make this further appear, it is to be Consi­der'd,

2. That Jeremy was a Priest, and a Prophet; so that if Peter and his Successors succeeded him, it must be in one of those two Capacities. But, 1. 'Tis certain, that neither Peter, nor any Chri­stian Bishop did, or could succeed him, as a Priest; he being a Priest of Aaron's Order, which absolutely ceased at our Saviour's death. 2. Nor did he succeed Jeremy as to his Prophe­tical Office. 1. Because that was, Extraordi­nary, Temporary, and Expired with his Per­son. [Page 31] The Prophetical Office was not Heredi­tary or Successive. 'Tis true, some Prophets preceded in time, and some afterwards follow­ed: So Vide Corn. A La­pide in Prin. Argument. Comment. sui in Jere­miam. Jeremy was after Isaiah about One hundred sixty five years; Ezekiel after him Four and thirty years; Daniel after him Twenty years. But each Prophet had a new Call and Commission, and that for particular and diffe­rent purposes, as is evident by the Prophecies themselves. 2. Jeremy and those Prophets were [...], Divinely Inspired, and that to an In­fallibility, and their Prophecies (as Divine, and the Word of God) referr'd into the Sacred Ca­non of Scripture; Now although Peter, (not by Succession from Jeremy, but by a new Call and Commission from our blessed Saviour) was [...], and had such an Assistance of the Ho­ly Spirit, as made him Infallible, and his Do­ctrine Divine Truth; yet such assistance being personal in him, (as it was in all Prophets be­fore him) his Successors cannot, without Impu­dence and Impiety pretend to it; though some of the For proof of this, see the Quotations be­fore Observ. 2. Canonists, the Jesuits, and Papal Pa­rasites, would have us believe (what the Pope Honorius, and Pope Vigilius anci­ently condemned for Hereticks in General Councils; and of later times, the General Coun­cils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil condemned o­thers. World knows to be false) that they are Infalli­ble.

3. But that I may (in short) come to the main scope and hinge of the Question; the truth is Evident, That all these Popes in the Exposition and Application of this Text in Jeremy, (not­withstanding their pretended Supremacy and Infallibility) are miserably mistaken, and put a [Page 32] sense upon it, which, before them, never any Father or Ancient Author did; no nor their own Learned Writers of later times, even when Popery most prevail'd; a sense (if I may call it so) inconsistent with the true and certain mean­ing of Jeremy. For when 'tis in that Text, I have set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms, to pull down, dissipate, destroy, plant, and build; That which Vide Constitut. 9. Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. Alexander. III. (and other Popes af­ter him) Cite this Text for, is, to infer a Power in Jeremy, (and from him, in them) so far, to pull down, dissipate, and destroy, as to Depose Kings and Emperors, and Absolve their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance: Though the Text mean nothing less; nor can any such Impious Conclusion, by any (save possibly Popish) Lo­gick, be deduced from it. For when the (2) Jer. 1. 10. Text says, I have set thee over the Nations, to pull down, and destroy, &c. 1. The meaning is not, that Jeremy (by this Commission) had Power and Jurisdiction, ( per modum Imperantis) as a Prince and Superior, to pull down and destroy any man, much less Kings and Emperors; nay so far was he from that, that he quietly and pati­ently submitted to the Authority and Com­mands of Injust and Impious Superiors, (as is evident in his Prophecy) and was several times He is beaten by Pashur. Jer. 20, 1. Appre­hended and Arraigned. Jer. 26. 8. Imprison'd by Zedekiah. Chap. 32. 3. and beaten and impri­son'd by the Princes. Jer. 37. 15. by them put into a Dungeon. Jer. 38. 6.Imprison'd and cast into Dungeons, with great danger of his Life, at Jerusalem; and when carried Captive into Egypt, by some Re­bellious Jews, who would not obey the Word of God by him, he was more miserably used, [Page 33] and at last, by them A suis Concivibus in Taphnis Aegypti, La­pidibus Obrut us, Martyr occubuit. Ita Hieronymus, Tertull. Doroth. Epi­phan. Isiodor. &c. Corn. A Lapide Comment. in Jerem. in Argumento. murder'd and martyr'd. So far was Jeremy (after God had given him that The Commission was given him, when he was a Child. Jer. 1. 6. 7. when he was 14. or 15. years old. So Corn. A Lapide in Prin. Argu­menti Commentariis su­is in Jeremiam praefixi. Commission) from pulling down, or destroying any man, that (on the contrary) he patiently submitted to his Superiors, and was by them (though most injustly) punished, pull'd down, and at last destroy'd. 2. But the mean­ing of that Text evidently is, I have set thee o­over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull down, destroy, and dissipate, &c. Per modum Prophetantis, & Quid Judicio Justo facturus esset Deus, praedicentis; As a Prophet, to foretell what God would do; that (unless they repented) he would pull down, destroy, and dissipate those Nations and King­doms, against which (by God's express Com­mand) he Prophesied. Jeremy had no Com­mission, no Power or Authority to pull down, or destroy any one single Person, much less Kings and Emperors; nor did he ever do, or attempt any such thing; he only Prophetied, and premonish'd them from God, that Destru­ction would come upon them for their sins, but it was God only who could and did execute that Sentence, and when they repented not, destroy­ed them. So in Scripture, the Prophet is said to do that, which he foretells will be done. Jo­seph in Prison, tells Pharaoh's Butler and Baker, That within three days the one should be restored to his Place, and the other hanged. This coming to pass (not by any Power of Joseph, for he was a Prisoner) yet the Gen. 41. 13. Text says, That He resto­red the one, and that He hang'd the other. And [Page 34] this, those Popes, who so often urge this Text of Jeremy, might have easily and certainly known, had they studied Scripture and Divinity as much as Human Policy (as too It is a memorable Story we are told to this purpose; not by any Lu­theran, but a Learned Sorbon Doctor, an ear­witness of it, who says, That when Pope Inno­cent. X. was pressed to Determine the Contro­versie between the Jesu­its and Jansenists, He (who was bred a Law­yer) told them that he was No Divine, that Di­vinity was not His Pro­fession, nor had he studied Divinity. Monsieur de St. Amour in his Journal Part. 3. Cap. 12. & p. 120. many of them do not) For what I have said is expresly said in the very Text of Jeremy's Prophetie; as he who compares and considers Vide Jer. 18. 7. 8. &c. Jer. 25. 15. 16. 17. &c. & Cap. 42. 10. & 45. 4. two or three Chapters in it, may evidently see. Sure I am, (to say nothing of the Fathers and Anci­ent Writers of the Church) what I have said of the true meaning of this place in Jeremy, is ac­knowledg'd even by the Jesuits and Canonists (the greatest Flatterers of the Pope, and Stick­lers for his pretended Supremacy) who Ex­pound the Text as I have done. I shall instance in One or Two.

1. Corn: A. Lapide (a Noted and Learned Jesuit Expounding this Place of Jeremy, says thus— Constitui Te ut E­vellas, i. e. ut Intermine­ris Hostibus meis, (quos Regionibus suis Plantavi) Me inde per Bella, &c. evulsurum, nisi resipuerint. A Lapide. in Jer. 1. 70. I have set thee over the Nations, that thou should pull up: That is (saith he) that thou shouldst Threaten my Enemies, that unless they re­pent, I will pull them out of the Countries, where I have placed them. And then he tells us truly, that this is the Opinion of Hierome, Theodoret, Rabanus, Vatablus, Lyranus, Dion-Carthusianus, and others. And then he adds— Ita Deus Plant at & Evellit Gentes: nam Je­remias reipsa nec planta­vit nec Ev [...]lsit Gentes. Ergo, ut Ev [...]las & Plan­tes; Idem est quod, ut has Gentes evellendas, illas plantandas A Deo mine­ris ac Praedices. Idem Ibidem. That it is God (not Jeremy) who Pulls up, and Plants the Nations. So that when 'tis said— I have set thee To pull up, and plant the Nations: it is all one as [...] if he had said— I have set thee to Threaten and Preach that God would Pull up and Plant those Na­tions. This is that we say and prove to be th [...] [Page 35] meaning of that Text in Jeremy, and the Jesuit fully Consents, and Acknowledges it to be true.

2. Pope Innocent. III. in his Cap. Solitae. 6. Ex­tra de Major. & Obedi­entia. Epistle to the Em­peror of Constantinople, (amongst several other places of Scripture) brings this Text of Jeremy, to prove the Priest (especially Peter's Successor the Pope) to be Ostendit S [...]cerdo­tium praeeminere R [...]gibus, dicto Jeremiae Glossa ad dictum Cap. verbo. So­litae Benignitatis. Superior to all Kings: and yet Bernardus de Botono (the Vide Corpus Ju­ris Can. Cum Glossis; Paris. 1612. In Nota, Titulum. Tom. 2. Imme­diatè (seu pagina pro­xima) sequente. Author of the Gloss there) when he comes to Explain that Text— I have set thee over the Nations, to pull up, and plant; he has nothing of Deposing and setting up Kings: but Conceives the meaning to be—That Jeremy was set over Constitui Te, ut Evellas] Vitia scilicet, & plantes] Virtutes, Glossa ad dictum Cap. Solitae. verbo, Constitui Te, &c. Nations, To pull up Vices, and plant Virtues. He truly Conceives, that Je­remy was not Constituted a Prince, with Domi­nion and Jurisdiction over Kings and Empe­rors; to set them up, or pull them down, at his pleasure; (to which purpose many of the Popes produce it) but a Prophet, to foretell them, what God would do. That is, He would plant them, if they were Penitent; if not, pull down and destroy them. So the Author of the Gloss; and they tell us, that he Glossas Eruditis­sumas Edidit. Vid. dictam Notam in Prin. Tom. 2. Juris Can. Paris 1612. writ most Learned Glosses upon the Decretals of Gregory. IX. which Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. Corp. Juris Can. prae­fixam.afterwards had the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII. Be it concluded then, that Pius. V. and those other Popes before mention'd (notwithstanding their Infallibility) have mise­rably mistaken the true meaning of this place of Jeremy. And indeed he who reads and seri­ously Considers the several Places of Scripture, [Page 36] which the Popes of the last 600. years have explain­ed in their Bulls and Decretals, and produc'd as proofs of their extravagant & usurp'd Suprema­cy; I say, he will have just reason to believe, that Popes are not the best Expositors of Scripture. For Instance; (to omit others) I shall refer the Rea­der to those 1. Peter 2. 13. 14. Jer. 1. 10. Gen. 1. 16. 17. &c. Joh. 21. 16. Matth. 16. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 38. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Gen. 1. 1. 1. Cor. 2. 15. 8. or 9. Places, which Pope Innoc. III. and Bonif. VIII. have Cited, and Explain'd, in two of their Constitutions, both Extant in their That of Innocent 3. Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra de Majorit. & Obed. And that of Boniface. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Eo­dem Tit. Extrav. Com­mun.Canon Law, in the places before Cited, where the Expositions and Applications of those pla­ces, by those Popes, are not only evidently Er­roneous, but (being repugnant to all good Sense and Reason) exceedingly ridiculous: such as may give their Adversaries reason to believe that the Authors of such wild Interpretations, Observ. 5. are rather Fools than Infallible.

5. Pope Pius. V. here in the beginning of this his Bull, calls Christus Ecclesiam Apostolorum Principi tra­didit gubernandam; & hunc unum Super Omnes Gentes & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit. Di­ctae Bullae principio. Peter (as other Popes and their Parasites usually do) Prince of the Apostles; and tells us, that our blessed Saviour did set and constitute him a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms. From whence, they (Illogically and without any shadow of Just Consequence) would Conclude, Peter's Su­premacy, his Dominion and Authority even over all the Apostles. For although Peter in the Go­spel (when the Names of the Twelve Apostles are numbred) is called Matth. 10. 2. [...], Primus; and a­mongst Latin Authors anciently ( Princeps Aposto­lorum) The Prince of the Apostles; yet that Petrus Apostolo­rum Primus & Primas, poterat Apostolis praecipe­re, & si in fide aut mo­ribus errarent, Corrigere, &c. Corn. A Lapide in Matth. 10. 2. Pa­pal Supremacy, which the Popes and their Party generally attribute to him, that they (as his Suc­cessors) [Page 37] might have it themselves, cannot thence be concluded. So Caeteri Evangelistae Matthaeum praeponunt Tho­mae, Matthaeus Thomam Praefert, Paulus ad Galat. 2. 9. Jacobum primo Loco recenset, ante Petrum & Johannem, Existimat Hie­ronymus ( so Erasmus says) Ejus esse, Ordinem Aposto­lotum distribuere, Qui illos Elegit: innuens, Autho­ritatem Apostolis Omni­bus Parem fuisse, quod ad Apostolici muneris functi­onem attinet. Erasmus in Locum. Erasmus tells us, (out of St. Hierome) That the Apostles in the other Evangelists, are not reckon'd in the Order they are in Matthew; lest any man should think, that Peter were first of all the Apostles, because he is reckon'd in the first Place. Mat­thew reckons Thomas before himself; but Mark after him: Matthew reckons Andrew before James and John, but Mark after them. So St. Paul reckons James before Peter and John, though Matthew puts Peter first. And Erasmus there says further, that Hierome intimates, That the Apostles were all (as to their Apostolick Office) Equal. That which makes me believe, that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome, is true, is this; The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it, and (in their Index Index Librorum Prohib. & Expurg. Ma­driti. 1667. p. 289. Col. 1. Expurgato­rius) Commanded it to be blotted out. But E­rasmus adds further,— Certe ex Ordine re­censionis, non Efficacitèr Colligitur Quis Cui sit prae­ferendus; siquidem ubi multi numerantur, aliquis primus sit opportet. Eras­mus ibidem, in Matth. 10. 2. That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded, from the Order wherein the A­postles are number'd, which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest, because where many are number'd, there is a necessity we begin with some one, and 'tis not ma­terial which we begin with. And This the Inquisi­tors let pass, without a Deleatur; they do not con­demn it to be blotted out, and so seem to approve it, otherwise it had not pass'd; so that (even by our Adversaries consent) all that can be rationally Inferr'd, from that Text, where in numbering the Apostles, Peter is called [...], first, is only So the word [...] usually signifies; Eusebius calls Simon Magus, [...] primus Dux Haerese­os, scilice [...] Primus Ordine Temporis, non Jurisdictio­nis. Euseb. Hist Lib. 2. Cap. 13. p. 51. Edit. Va­lesii.a Primacy of Order, (which we willingly grant) but no Primacy (much less a Supremacy) of Authority, Dominion, and Jurisdiction over the [Page 38] rest of the Apostles; which the Pope and his Par­ty desire, and we justly deny. 2. And as [...] or Primus; so Princeps, or Prince (amongst the best Latin Authors) usually signifies Order Only, or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes, without any So Homer and Virgil are call'd Poeta­rum Principes. So in Tul­ly, Patroni Principes, [...]e­minent Advocates. So Plato and Aristotle, Phi­losophorum Principes, and yet no Dominion or Jurisdiction meant in these Expressions. Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd. And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter, I have Authentick warrant, even the Roman Breviary, restored according to the De­cree of the Council of Trent, publish'd by Pius V. (The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a­against Queen Elizabeth) and then Revised by the Authority of Clement. VIII. and Vrban VIII. and Printed at Antverp. 1660. In this Breviary, we have this Dicti [...] Breviarij Part. aestivâ, ad Diem. 29. Junij, in Festo SS. Apostolorum Petri & Pauli. p. 476. & in Festo S. Andreae. Nov. 30. Ibi­dem pag. 780. Hymn, in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul;

Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too, are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes, Princes of the Churches; For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two A­postles; Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two; nor Properly to any but them two in that Place. Though elsewhere it Vide Commune Sanctorum in Calce Par­tis Aestivae, dicti Brevia­rij, & in Communi A­postolorum & Evange­listarum. pag. 4. relates to all the Apostles; as in the Place cited in the Mar­gent; when after the Invitatory, (as they call it) Ad matutinum, Invitatorium. Regem A­postolorum Dominum, Ve­nite adoremus. Come let us adore the Lord, King of the Apostles; it follows thus,

So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary, Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes, according to the Decree of the Trent Coun­cil; All the other Apostles (under our blessed Sa­viour, and by his Authority) were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Hoc erant utique & Caeteri Apostoli, Quod suit Petrus, Pari Consor­tio praediti & Honoris & Potestatis. Cyprian de U­nitate Ecclesiae. p. 208. Edit. Rigaltij. Peter. Now I desire to know, how these things will Consist? Ecclesiam suam V­ni Soli, Petro Commisit gubernandam; & hunc Vnum Super Omnes Gen­tes & Regna Principem Constituit. Bulla dicta in Principio. Pius. V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth, says, That our blessed Saviour Committed the Govern­ment of his Church to One Only, to Peter, and Consti­tuted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms (so he in his Bull) and yet the same Pope, in this Roman Breviary, (for it was Approved and Publish­ed by him) and the Hymn here cited, says, That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes; and if so, then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed; no, the Commission of every Apostle (given by our blessed Saviour) was as unlimited and as large as Peters. This will appear in all the Particulars of it, equally given to all, as they are expresly set down in Scripture, from whence alone, we can [Page 40] surely know, what their Authority and Commis­sion was. Our blessed Saviour tells them, and us, — Joh. 20. 21. 1. As my Father sent me, so send I you. There we have the Author and Authority of their Com­mission. The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all. 2. Then he breath'd upon them, and said, Ibidem. vers. 22. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them; It was that Holy Spirit, which gave them, 1. Infallibili­ty in their Doctrine. 2. Power to work Miracles for Mark. 16. 20. Confirmation of it. 3. Then he adds, Ibid. vers. 23. whose sins ye retain, they are retained, &c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the cal­ling and governing the Church, which is elsewhere called, Matth. 16. 19. The Power of the Keys; which Consists in binding and loosing, retaining and remitting sins. For so 'tis Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited, and is (by our Adversaries) Ministri Ecclesiae ad Remmissionem peccati, Per Virtutem Clavium Ministerialiter operantur. Lyran. in Joh. 20. 23. Vid. Tirinum, Menochium, &c. in Matth. 16. 19. con­fess'd. So that 'tis Evident that the Power of the Keys, the Power of binding and loosing, of re­taining and remitting sins, is Equally given to all the Apostles, to every One as well as Peter. 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province, where, and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostoli­cal Power— Matth. 28. 19. 20. Go and Teach All Nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoe­ver I have Commanded you. Their Diocese was the World— Mark. 16. 15. Go ye into All The World, and preach the Gospel to every Creature (every man.) And the administring the Sacraments, and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Go [...]pel, was the [Page 41] business they were to do in that their Diocese. 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work, he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance; Lo, I am Matth. 28. 20. with you Always, even to the End of the World.

These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles, and (which to me seems Evident) with­out difference or distinction; Equally to all; to Simon the Cannite, (for Simon, who Matth. 10. 4. is call'd Simon the Cananite, in the Syri­ack Version there, and Luk. 6. 15. is call'd Simon [...], which is the Greek word for Canni­ta, or Cinnaeus. For the Syriack [...] Canna sig­nifies [...]. vid. Ang. Caminium, in Explicat. locorum. N. Test. p. 51. so it should be writ) as well, and as much as to Simon Peter. If any think otherwise, if he can, and will (by any Cogent Reason) make it appear either, 1. That the fore­going Powers and Promises were not Equally gi­ven to all the Apostles. 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was (in Scripture) given pecu­liarly to Peter, whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church, to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms, (as Pope Pius. V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms) I say, he who can and will make both or either of these appear, shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery, and I shall (for the future) have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy; which (at present) I take to be a groundless Error, without any proof or probabi­lity. Objection.

I know that the Popes in their Vide Constitut. Bonif. 8. Cap. unam San­ctam. 1. De Majorit. & Obed. Extravag. Com­munes. & Innocent. 3. Cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra. de Major. & Obedientiâ. Constitutions, and their Party usually urge that place in Matth. 16. 18. 19. Mat­thew to prove Peter's, (and thence their own) vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church, (even the Apostles themselves not excep­ted) the words These— Thou art Peter, and upon [Page 42] This Rock, I will build my Church.—And I give unto thee, The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. From this Place, (most irrationally, and without any Sense or Consequence) they infer, That Promittit hic Chri­stus Petro, quod ipse & Suc­cessor Ejus Omnis, sit Ec­clesiae Supremum Caput, Princeps & Monarcha. Jac. Tirinus in Math. 16. 18. 19. Peter, and every Successor of his, was Constituted Supream Head, Prince and Monarch of the Vniversal Church. So that what Peter or his Quamvis mortalis homo sit Petrus Ejusque Successor, tamen Coelesti praeditus Potestate, & quod ille è Cathedrâ decreverit, habendum est tanquam ab Ipso Deo Decretum. Idem Ibidem, ad vers. 19. Gra­tian. Can. 2. Sic Omnes. dist. 19. Successor shall (è Ca­thedrâ) Determine and Decree, is to be received, as if God himself had decreed it. So Tirinus, and their Canon Law, in their most Correct Editions. Though this be Erroneous, and evidently Impi­ous, yet Tirinus, Gratian, and their Canonists are not singular in this point, another Learned Jesuit (in his Commentary on this Place) tells us, That when our blessed Saviour says, On this Rock will I build my Church; he speaks of De Petro ut Funda­mentali Petra loquitur Christus. Joh. Stephan. Menochius in Matth. 16. 18. Peter, as the Fundamental Rock, on which the Church is built. And he adds— Christus est Fun­damentalis Petra Praecipuè, sed ei Successerunt Petrus & reliqui summi Pontifi­ces, ut Ejus Vicarij cum Summâ Potestate. Meno­chius ibid. p. 41. Col. 2. vid. Gratian. Can. In no­no. Dist. 21. That though our blessed Saviour was chiefly that Fundamental Rock, yet Peter and the Popes of Rome succeeded him, as his Vicars, with Supream Power, &c. This place, they conceive; con­cerns no Apostle but Peter, and proves his, and his Successors Supremacy.

To this, I say, 1. Responsio. 1. That all they say, in this par­ticular, is gratis dictum; for they only say it, with­out any pretence of proof. If we will take their bare word, we may; otherwise we may chuse; for they bring no proof to prove their Exposition of this Text, such as might command and neces­sitate our Assent. And then a bare denial, is An­swer enough to a bare Assertion. For (as St. Hie­rome says in the like case) an unproved Position, [Page 43] eâdem facilitate rejicitur, quâ Affirmatur. 2. When they say, our blessed Saviour was the chief Fundamen­tal Rock on which the Church was built, and that St. Peter and the Popes succeeded him, with Supream Pow­er. They consequently must say Two things; 1. That our blessed Saviour left his Place and Of­fice of being the Fundamental Rock, to Peter, when he left this World. For if he kept it, and still do keep it, neither the Pope nor Peter could be his Successors. No man can be Successor and suc­ceed into a Place till his Predecessor leave it. Linus neither did, nor could succeed Peter in the Bishop­rick of Rome, whilst Peter liv'd, and possess'd it himself; so that by this Erroneous and Impious Doctrine, they have displac'd our blessed Saviour from being the Fundamental Rock, on which the Church is built, and instead of him, have plac'd Peter first, and then particular Popes successively. And then let the World judge, in what a miserable Condition the Church of Christ must be. 1. When the Fundamental Rock on which it was built, was an Marcellinus Ponti­fex ad Scrificia Gentium ductus, Deos alienos Ado­ravit. Plat. in vita Marcel. Idolater, as Marcellinus was. 2. Or an He­retick; as Cum Arianis sentie­bat, &c. Plat. in vit. Liber. Liberius, Honorius Synod. 6. damnatur. Act. 18. vid. Theoph. Chrona­graph. p. 299. 301. Ana­stas. Biblioth. in vitis Pontif. p. 54. Francis. Combesis in Auctario Biblioth. Graec. Patrum. Tom. 2. p. 66. Synodus Nicena. 2. apud Joveri­um. Part. 1. p. 106. Col. 2. Honorius, Vid. Synod. 5. & Rich. Crakanthorp. in vigilio Dormitante. Ed. Richerium in Hist. Con­cil. Generalium. p. 302. Vigilius, &c. were. 3. Or an Impudent whorish Woman, as Johannes Anglicus, or Pope Vid. Plat. in vitâ Johan. 8. & Notas Car. Annibalis Fabroti, ad vitas Pont. Anast. p. 290. Joan certainly was. 4. Or when many Popes together, no less than Fifty (by the Confession of their own Learned men) were Vid. Genebrardi Chronol. circa Initium seculi. 10. l. 4. p. 807. ad Annum 901. Apostatici potiùs quam Apostolici. 5. Or when the Popes were such Tunc foedissima Rom. Ecclesiae facies, cum Romae Dominarentur sordidissi­mae Meretrices, quarum ar­bitrio, Intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum Ama­sij Pseudopontifices; qui non nisi ad fignanda tempora, in Catalogo Rom. Pontif. scripti: Quis enim à scortis intrusos sine lege, legitimos dicere possit Romanos fu­isse Pontifices? Baronius Annal. Tom. 10. ad An. 912. §. 14. p. 663. vid. eundem an Ad. 897. §. 8. p. 624. & ad An. 925. §. 10. p. 688. Edit. Annal. Antverp. 1618. vid. loca & hic adde. Monstrous Villains, as were put into, and out of St. Peter' s Chair [Page 44] by Impudent Whores, made Popes by Violence and Simo­ny, such (as even in Baronius his Judgment) none should, or dared call true Popes, whose names were re­corded only to fill up the Catalogues of the Roman Bishops. 6. Or in the Vacancies, when for Post Clem. 4. va­cat Sedes. Ann. 3. m. 2. dies. 10. Post Nicolaum 3. vacat Sedes. Ann. 3. Post Clement. 5. vacat Sedes. Ann. 2. m. 3. d. 17. Platina in Ejus vita. two or three years, and (if some Sunt qui scribunt, post mortem Nicolai. 1. Sedem vacasse Ann. 8. Mens. 7. d. 9. Platina in Calce vitae Nicolai. 1. Writers say true) sometime for Eight years, there was no Pope at all, and so (by this Doctrine) the Church had no Fundamental Rock at all, for several years together. 7. Lastly, Or when they had for near In that great Schism, commonly rec­kon'd for the 27. Schism in their Church; which begun about the Year 1378. Vrbanus. 6. being Pope at Rome, and Clem. 7. at Avignion. Fifty years together, two or three Popes at the same time; when it was Impossible they should be all Legiti­mate, and true Successors of St. Peter, and (what they pretend to) Vicars of Christ our blessed Sa­viour; and which, or whether any of them, were such indeed, none did, or could know: Nay, 'tis certain, (and must by our Adversaries be confess'd, (unless they will deny their own received Princi­ples) that sometimes, all of the Pretenders were Impious Usurpers of the Papal Chair, without a­ny Just Right or Title to it. Then the first Coun­cil of Anno Dom. 1409. or as others. 1410. Pisa met (and it was a General One, con­sisting of above. 600. Longus A Corio­lano. Summa Con. p. 857. Col. 2. Fathers) there were Two Popes in being (such as they were) Gregory XII. and Benedict. XIII. who were both In maximâ Prae­latorum Frequentiâ, utér­que Pontifex ab iis dam­natus est, utróque tanquam Perjuro, Schismatico, Hae­retico, è Pontificatu de­jecto. Idem Ibidem Col. 1. Damn'd and Deposed, as Perjur'd Persons, Schismaticks, and He­reticks, &c. and that by an unanimous Consent and Decree of that Great Council. At the Council at Constance (four or five Concil. Constan­ti [...]nse Anno 1414. years after) there were three Popes; the two beforenamed, Gregory and Benedict, (who would not sit down, though damn'd at Pisa, and John. XXIII. For the two former, [Page 45] what Villains they were, the Council of Pisa has told us. For John. XXIII. the Council of Constance gives him this Character— Nobis Legitimè Constat. Johan. Papam. 23. à tempore quo fuit assum­ptus, usque nunc, Papatum in Scandalum Ecclesiae no­torium rexisse; vitâque sua Damnabili ejúsque Ne­phandis moribus, populis exemplum vitae Male prae­buisse. Concil. Constant, Sess. 10. That he was a Per­son (all the time he was Pope) notoriously Scandalous to the Church, that his Life was damnable, and he in his Conversation guilty of Impieties not to be nam'd: And the Council adds, (in their Definitive Sentence of his Deposition) Johan. 23. Schis­matis nutritivum, à voto, promisso, & Juramento per Ipsum Deo, Ecclesiae & huic Concilio praestitis di­rimativum, Simoniacum notorium, suis Inhonestis & Detestabilibus vita & mo­ribus Ecclesiam Dei & Populum Christianum no­torie scandalizantem. I­dem Concil. Sess. 12. in sententia contra Johan. 23. desinitivâ. That he had broke his Vow, his Oath, and Promise made to God, and his Church, that he was Notoriously Simoniacal, and by his dishonest and detesta­ble Life and Manners notoriously Scandalous, &c. Now if these (and such other) Popes be the Fun­damental Rock upon which the Church is built, (and this they say, and would have us believe it) She must of necessity be in a miserable Condition, and the Gates of Hell must prevail against Her; when they evidently prevail against the Rock, up­on which (they say) she is built; for if the Rock and Foundation fail, that which is built upon it, must evidently fall and come to Ruin. This is the first Consequence of their Doctrine, manifest­ly Erroneous: but this is not all; For there is a second Consequence of it, both Erroneous, and indeed Blasphemous. For, 2. when they say, that our blessed Saviour was the Fundamental Rock on which the Church was built, and that Peter and the Popes aft [...]r, did succeed him in that Place and Of­fice, cum Potestatis plenitudine, (says Pius. V. here) Cum Summâ Potestate (as others Generally) Hence it follows, That the present Pope has (and every one of his Predecessors had) the same Power requi­red to the being of a Fundamental Rock, which [Page 46] our blessed Saviour had. For if they succeed him in the same Place, and with a Supream Power, then they have the same Place and Power our blessed Sa­viour had. His Power neither was, nor could be greater then Potestas summa; (summo non datur Su­perius, there can be nothing higher then the high­est, nor superior to the Supream) and if Peter had, and every pitiful Pope has potestatem summam, Then they have a Power as great, and equal to that our Blessed Saviour had before he Resigned it to his Successors: But I might have saved the Labour of proving this; for 'tis Acknowledg'd and expresly Affirm'd in their Roman Catechism ( ex Decreto Con­cilij Tridentini, juslu Pii. V. Edito) in which they say, that Peter was Catechismus Ro­manus. Part. 1. Cap. 10. §§. 11. 12. Caput & Princeps Omnium A­postolorum. And then it there follows, Christus Ibid. §. 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1635. 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 Matth. 16. 19. 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 [Page 47] 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 Vid. Chrysost. in. Matth. 26. Hom. 82. pag. 702. Edit. 1607. Isiod. Pelusiota. l. 1. Epist. 235. Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 20. & De verbis Dom. Serm. 13. Tom. 18. Col. 58. ita Cyrillus & Anonymus in Catena Nicetae Serra­rum Episcopi ad Matth. 16. 18. vide Catenam Graecam in Matth. per Possinum Jesuitam Cap. 16. 18. Hilarius Picta­niens. De Trinitate. l. 2. p. 25. Edit. Erasmi. The­ophylact. in Matth. 16. 18. 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 Index Librorum Prohibit: & Expurg. Ma­driti. 1667. In Desid. E­rasmo. p. 289. Col. 1. 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 Super hanc Pe­tram; i. e. super fidei Tuae soliditatem. Can. loqui­tur. 18. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. verbo. Petram, in Glos­sâ. John Semeca, Au­thor of the Gloss upon Gratian, and Super hanc Petram, quam Confessus es; i. e. Christum. Lyranus in Matth. 16. 18. Nic. Lyranus, and Ansel. Laudunensis, Author of the Super hanc Petram, i. e. Christum in quem credis. Glossa Interline­aria in dictum Locum. Interlineary Gloss, upon his Text of Matthew; by the Rock on which the Church was built, un­derstand [Page 48] Christ (our blessed Saviour) and not Pe­ter So Gregorius Magnus in. 7. Psalmos Poenitential. Tom. 2. O­perum Paris. 1619. pag. 908. D. Christus est Pe­tra, à qua Petrus Nomen Accepit, & Super Quam se aedificaturum Ecclesiam dixit—Quod Eccle­sia nullis Persecutionibus sit superanda, Ipse Super Quem aedificata est, Osten­dit, cum ait, Portae In­ferorum non praevalebunt contra eam. So Strabo Fuldensis in his Ordin. Gloss. on Matth. 16. 18. circa Ann. 840. And af­ter them Lyranus (in the Place cited) who though he was a Fran­ciscan Frier, and flou­rished almost Four hun­dred years ago, and in many things (as those times were) Popish e­nough; yet he was not come so far, as to make Peter, or any but Christ, the Rock on which the Church was built: And again, on the 1. Cor. 3. 11. Solus Christus est Fundamentum Ecclesiae, quod ex se firmitatem & stabilitatem habet. And the Gloss on their own Canon Law, says, That Christ was the Rock; for Boniface. 8. in that famous Extravagant. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Indeavouring to prove the Papal Supremacy from several Places in Scripture; he adds, That the Authority given to Peter and his Successors by our blessed Saviour, was not Human but Divine. Haec Authoritas, licet homini data, non humana, sed potius Divina, ore divino Petro data & Successoribu, &c. The Gloss on these words, Est autem haec Au­thoritas. p. 191. says thus— Haec Authoritas est Divina, quia firmata est in Petra firma, in Chri­sto, qui erat verus Deus: & quod sit Divina, quia fundata in eo; patet ex Evangelio; quia Christus loquebatur cum dixit, super hanc Petram; id est, super meipsum (qui sum Petra, & qui significor per Petram) aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Ita Gloss. verbo, Est autem haec Authoritas. Ad Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Extrav. Commun.. And a late Learned Sorbon Doctor (though he would seem to say, that Peter was that Rock) yet acknowledgeth, that by that Rock, the Super hanc Petram, i. e. Super Ipsum Petrum, seu Petram seu Cepham, vel Super Fidem Petri quae est Catholica. Dr. Hen. Holden in Annotat. in Nov. Testam. Paris. 1660. ad Matth. 16. 18. & ad. 7. Matth. vers. 25. 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 Synodus Statuit, praemittendam esse Confessionem Fidei—Symbolum fidei; quo Romana Ecclesia utitur, tanquam Principium—ac Fundamentum firmum ac Vnicum, contra quod portae Inferi nunquam praevalebunt. Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. Feb. 4. Ann. 1546. 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 Matth. 16. 18. 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) [Page 49] the Only Foundation. And lastly, it is very consi­derable, what Per Petram, Con­fessionem Fidei intelli­gunt Chrysostomus, Cy­rillus, Hilarius, & Rom. Pontifices, Leo magnus, Agatho, Nicolaus, & A­drianus primus in suis Decretalibus, Stapleton, Princep. Fidei Doct. De­monstr. Controvers. 2. l. 6. c. 2. p. 207. 208. 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— Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum; Ego dico Tibi, quia Tues Petrus, & Su­per hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super Illum Vnum aedificat Ec­clesiam. Catechis. Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus. Part. 1. Cap. 10. de. 9. Symboli Art. §. 12. p. 115. Edit. Paris. 1635. 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 'tis 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 [Page 50] he who Matth. 7. 24. 25. 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 1 Joh. 5. 4. 5. 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 Orat Sacerdos, ut Sacra Symbola Omnibus cedant, [...]. In Lit. Jac. Graec. Paris. 1560. p. 20. vid. Fabr. Stapu­lensem in Matth. 16. 18. So Pope Nicol. 2. Eccle­sia super Petram fidei fun­data, Gratian. Can. Om­nes. 1. Dist. 22. And the Apostle in his Canonical Epistle (Jude 20.) ad­viseth all, to build up themselves on their most holy Faith. 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 'tis 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. Isa. 28. 16. 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 Edit. Rom. 1590. Sixtus. V. and Edit. Rom. 1592. Clemens. 8. it is untruly render'd— Lapide [...] pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum. Whence Bellarmine, in Praefat. ad Libr. de Pon­tif. Rom. vid. R. Cra­kanth. Contra Spalatens. Cap. 81. §. 3. p. 612. 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 Vid. Hieronym. in Isaiae 28. vers. 16. Isiodor. Clarius in. 1. Cor. 3. 10. Fundatissimum Fundamen­tum Christus. Hieromes [Page 51] 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 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. and Act. 4. 11. Peter himself (who under­stood that Text as well as the Cardinal) refers it to our blessed Saviour, so does Rom. 9. 33. & 10. 11. 1. Cor. 3. 11. & 1. Cor. 10. 4. 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 Matth. 21. 42. But though Paul and Peter, and our blessed Saviour himself do expound the word Rock on which the Church is built, not to be meant of Peter, but Christ the Messiah, (as ap­pears by the foregoing Texts) yet Maldonate the Jesuit (whose words I shall cite anon) says— That 'tis very far from sense so to expound it. Mal­donate in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. And yet Card. Cusanus says, That Christ was that Rock. Operum p. 826. And so Cyrill in the Aurea Cate­nâ Graec. Patrum in Psal­mos David. 50. per Dan. Barbaram Patriarcham Aquileiensem; Venet. 1569. ad vers. 2. Psal. 39. (aliâs. 40. p. 400. 401. So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psal. Poenitent. Tom. 2. p. 980. D. So Chry­sostom, &c. 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 1. Pet. 2. 5. Apostle tells us, That the Church is a spiritual House, which is built upon Eph. 2. 20. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, [Page 52] Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone. And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church, the New Jerusalem, says— Rev. 21. 14. 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— Noveritis Symbo­lum hoc esse Fundamentum super quod aedificium Ec­clesiae surrexit. Ang. lib. 3. de Symbolo ad Catechu­men. Tom. 9. 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— [...] The­ophylact. in Matth. 16. 17. 18. 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' s words are these—Censco Apostolos ideo fundatores Ecclesiae dici; quia fidei summam ediderunt, & eff us [...] Cruoris Testimonio, necnon praedicatione & Miraculi [...] in hominum a­nimis inseverunt. Corn. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 112. Col. 2. C. 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 Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. Apostolicum Sym­bolum vocat firmum atque Vnicum Fundamentum, Contra quod portae Inferi non praevalebunt. Idem, ibid. Col. 2. E: Trent Council, and Tale Fundamentum à Paulo fuit Jactum. 1 Cor. 3. 10. in Saptens Ar­chitectus Fundamenum posui. Idem, ibidem. St. Paul: And then adds— Idem dic [...]nt alia Concilia & Pa [...]res. Ibid. That other [Page 53] Councils and Fathers say the same. Another Sunt inter veteres Authores, qui Interpretan­tur super hanc Petram; i. e. Super Hanc Fidem; aut Super hanc Fidei Con­fessionem quâ me Filium esse Dei vivi dixisti: ut Hilarius, Greg: Nyssenus, Chrysostomus, Cyrillus A­lexandrinus, Ambrosius in Epistolas Pauli, &c. Maldonat. in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. 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 Longiùs etiam à Sensu Reccdens Augusti­nus interpretatur, super hanc Petram, i. e. Super meipsum, quia Petra erat Christus. Maldonat. ibid. 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 Certum est apud Omnes haec. 12. Funda­menta (Rev. 21. 14.) sig­nificare. 12. Apostolos; ip­sorum enim humeris quasi innixus Ecclesiae murus re­cumbit. Ideo enim eorum nomina fundamentis In­scripta sunt, ut significe­tur Ipos esse fundamente & fundatores (haec enim duo eodem recidunt) Ec­clesiae. Corn. A Lapide in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. 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 1. Tim. 3. 15. 1. Cor. 3. 9. 16. a House, the House of God; and every good Christian is a 1 Pet. 2. 5. Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House. 2. Our [Page 54] blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles (as well as Peter) to Eph. 4. 11. 12. build this House. He gave some Apostles—for the Edifying ( [...]) or build­ing the Body of Christ; That is, the Eph. 1. 22. 23. The Church which is his Body. Church. 3. The Apostles all of them, ( Paul 1 Cor. 3. 9. 10. And I ( says Paul) as a Master-Builder, &c. 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 Ye are Gods build­ing, and as a skilful Ma­ster-Builder, I have laid The Foundation. 1. Cor. 3. 11: 12. where [...] peri­tum, significat. [...]. Hesy­chius. calls it so. For that Foundation, which he there says he had laid at Corinth (as may appear from the Context) was the Fundamentum po­sui; i. e. prima initia fi­dei Annunciavi. Lyranus. Annunciavi vitae aeternae fundamentum, id est, Chri­stum. Fab. Stapulensis. [...]. Theodor. vid. Cor. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 2. E. vid. Gro­tium in 1. Cor. 3. 10. Rom. 15. 20. Hebr. 6. 1. Ita etiam Lyranus & Glossa Interlinearia. 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 [Page 55] 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 Act. 9. 31. 1. Cor 14. 3. 5. 12. so St. Paul's Authority was given him for Edification, or build­ing the Church. 2. Cor. 10. 8. 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 Ideo enim Apostolo­rum nomina Fundamentis Ecclesiae Inscripta sunt. Rev. 21. 14. ut significetur Ipsos esse Fundamenta & Fundatores (haec enim duo eodem recidum) Ecclesiae. Corn. A. Lapide ubi su­pra, in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. Adversaries Confess. Now (as to this Particular) as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church; Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative a­bove the other Apostles; He was no more Pe­tra, a Founder or Foundation of the Church, then the other Apostles. Nay in this (if any) certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself, or any of the Rest. For he (with truth and modesty enough, 1. Cor. 15. 10. I laboured More abundantly then They All. And 2. Cor. 11. 23. tells us—That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All: (And Plus reliquis; quia illi, ut plurimum, Judaeis praedicabant, quorum faci­lis Catechizatio (cum le­gem & Prophetas admise­runt) Paulus Gentibus, qui utrāsque negabant. Irenaeus Adversus Haere­ses lib. 4. cap. 41. p. 379. C. Edit. Feu-Ardentij. Irenaeus gives the Reason of it) His Sufferings were 2. Cor. 11. 23. Vid. Originem contra Celsum, Graeco-Lat. p. 49. 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 [Page 56] 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 2. Cor. 11. 28. [...]. All The Churches lay upon him. Nor that only, but that he made Orders and 1. Cor. 7. 17. [...]. 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 Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. In Decreto de E­dit. Sacrorum Liborum. Fathers ridiculously declare Au­thentick) renders it otherwise— So I teach in all Churches: but the [...]; Inde [...]; Edictum, [...], Constitutio. Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli, &c. word there, signifies not to teach, but properly to [...]. Phavorinus, verbo [...]. 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 [...]. Theodor. in. 1. Cor. 7. 17. Oecumenius and The­ophylact say to the same purpose, on the same place. Confer 1. Cor. 16. 1. 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 [Page 57] consideration of the Premises, some of the An­cients have call'd St. Paul, A Preacher to the whole World; So [...]. Photius Epist. 117. pag. 158. & ibid. p. 109. 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 [...]. Paulus autem peculiaritèr Orbi V­niverso. Nicol. Methon. De Corp. & Sang. Chri­sti in magna Bibl. Pa­trum. Tom. 12. p. 519. 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 [...]. V­niversi Orbis Terrarum sol­licitudinem mecum gero. Theodor. in. 2. Cor. 11. 28. 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 La­bo [...]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 [Page 58] 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, 1. Our blessed Saviour. and that [...], the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built, is evident from the Vid. Matth. 21. 40. Rem. 9. 33. & Rom. 10, 11, & 1. Cor. 3. 11. & 1. Cor. 10. 4. & Act. 4. 11. & 1. Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. & Isai. 28. 16. The Sep­tuagint Translate it thus— [...]. Vid. Hiero­nymum in locum; & 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. ubi Isaiam ci­tat▪ & eadem pene verba habet, quae apud. 70. In­terpretes hodiè Extant. vide Procopium in Isai. 44. p. 504. & Fabr. Sta­pulensem in Matth. 16. 18. 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 Christus lapis sum­mus Angularis Omnia su­stinens, & in unam fidem Abrahae Colligens eos, qui in Vtroque Testamento apti sunt in aedificationem Dei. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 42. p. 380. Edit. Feuardentij. which (as Irenaeus tells us) the Vniversal Church, both be­fore and since his coming into the World, was built. He was Gen. 3. 15. promised by God presently after the fall of Adam, and then successfully by Act. 13. 18. 24. Luc. 1. 70. & Luc. 24. 27. all the Prophets; His Death and Passion was a Propi­tiation, as well for the Sins of those who Hebr. 9. 15. 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 Hebr. 11. 13. vid. Eusebium Hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 6. B. Edit. Valesij. [...]. &c. Omnes ab origine Generis hu­mani qui Justitiae laude floruerunt, ut Abraham, Moses, & Quicunque postea Justi, Omnes Chri­stum agnoverunt, eíque tanquam Dei Filio, debitum Cultum Exhibuerunt. Et Demonstrat. Evang. lib. 1. Capp. 5. 6. know and believe. Nay, (if we believe Euse­bius) [Page 59] the Promises of the Messias, were [...]. Christum distinctè cognitum habuerunt. En­seb. Hist. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 16. B. 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 [...]. Si non no­mine, reipsa tamen Chri­stianos. Idem plane ha­bet Augustinus, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 13. call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us, That the Galat. 3. 8. Gospel was preach­ed to Abraham, and so it was to all the Ancient Church, by the Luc. 24. 25. 26. 27. 44. 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 Act. 26. 22. 23. and Act. 28. 23. 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) Lombard. Sent. I. 3. Dist. 25. vid. Johan. Mar­tinez de Ripalda ad di­ctam Distinctionem. 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 [Page 60] 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, Augustinus in E­vang. secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Tom. 10. p. 58. D. Basil. 1569. Super hanc Petram quam confes­sus es, dicens; Tues Chri­stus Filius Dei vivi, aedi­jicabo Ecclesiam meam. Id est, Super Meipsum aedifi­cabo Ecclesiam meam. Super Me aedificabo Te; non Me super Te—Non in Pauli, nec in Petri Nomine baptizati sumus, sed Christi; ut Petrus ae­dificetur super Petram, non Petra super Petrum. Ibid. pag. 59. A. Peter [...] as well as Paul) in respect of Christ (who is the great Immoveable Rock, which sustains the [...], &c. Om­nium siquidem fundamen­tum est Christus, qui sibi ad mota, fixa firmáque susti­neat. Procopius in Cap. 44. Isaiae. p. 504. And a little after— [...], &c. Ecclesiae idem fundamentum jesit, qui Ipse Fundamentum est, super quod & nos, tanquam Lapides pretiosi, superstruimur. Procopius ibid. pag. 519. Omnis Ecclesiae Compages innititur & Incum [...]it, ut nunquam cadat, summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesu. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psal. 86. Tom. 8. pag. 955. Operum Basil. 1569. 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 Fundamentum est solus Christus, vel fides Ipsius. Object. Apoc. 21. 14. Apostoli sunt Fun­damenta. Sol 1. Fundamentum propriè, est illud quod habet firmitatem & stabilitatem in se; sic Solus Christus est Fundamentum. 2. Impropriè, illud quod adhaeret primo Fundamento; sicut sunt Lapides primarij Fundamento inhaerentes: sic Apostoli dicuntur fundamenta qui Primitùs Ad­haeserunt Christo. Lyranus in. 1. Cor. 3. 11. vid. Per. Lombard. in locum. pag. 73. C. D. Christus primus Lapis & Angularis; super Christum Apostoli & Prophetae, super illos, Nos aedificati sumus. Maldonatus in Matth. 16 pag. 342. And again—Multi in eodem Fundamento Lapides sunt; summus & primus solus est Christus, & praeter illud, Fundamentum Aliud nemo potest ponere; super illud autem, etiam alia sunt, quae eo nituntur, Fundamenta: nam & Apostoli & Prophetae Fundamentum Ap­pellantur, sed ipso summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesu. Eph. 2. 20. Maldonat. in Matth. 7. 24. p. 178. 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 [...]. Hebr. 13. 20. great and [...] 1. Pet. 5. 4. chief Shepherd. My John 10. 27. 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 John 10. 15. down my life for my Sheep; so he did for his Apostles, else they could not have been saved; [Page 61] 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 Act. 20. 28. 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; 'tis 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 Rev. 15. 3. King of Saints. 'Tis 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— Hebr. 3. 5. 6. [...], ut famulus: Christus [...], super domum, ut Filius & Do­minus. That Moses was faithful in all his House, (i. e. in the Judaical Church) As A Servant; but Christ as a Son, over [Page 62] 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 2. Cor. 4. 5. 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 Christus Petrum V­niversi fidelium Generis Caput Constituit—ut qui Ei Successit, Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Po­testatem habere voluerit. Catechismus Tridenti­nus Part. 1. cap. 10. §§. 11. 12. & praecipuè. §. 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1635. 2. The Apostles. 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 Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. &c. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. &c. blessed Saviour, without any de­pendence Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus nec per hominem, Gal. 1. 1. [...], &c. Dominus eum vocavit voelitus, homi­ne non usus Administro. Theodoret in loc. Non Petro. Estius in locum.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 [Page 63] 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 Matthias à Collegio Apostolorum factus est A­postolus; Ita Estius in Gal. 1. 1. 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 Haec omnia factae sunt dirigente Petro, qui totius Operis fuit Chorae­gus. A Lapide in cap. 1. Act. Apost. p. 57. Col. 1. C. Directior in that business (the Election of Matthias) yet he can­not deny, but it was done by the Common Apostoli cateríque fideles Communi consensis Nominarunt duos, &c. A. Lapide, ibidem. 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 Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. &c. Mark. 3. 13. 14. 15. Luk. 9. 1. Com­mission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour, before the Resurrection; when they were sent to the Matth. 10. 5. 6. 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 Matth. 28. 18. 19. Mark. 16. 15. 16. John. 20. 22. 23. 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 [Page 64] 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 Francis. A Victoria. SS. Theol. Salamanticensis Academiae, in primariâ Cathedra Professore Exi­mio & Incomparabili. Ita habet Libri sui Epigra­phe seu Titulus. Excellent and Incomparable Divine) Propo­ses and proves these two Conclusions. 1. All the Omnem Potestatem, quam Apostoli habuerunt, reciperunt Immediatè à Christo. Victoria Prelect. 2. De Potest. Eccles. Conc. 3. p. 84. Power the Apostles had, was (by them) recei­ved Immediately from Christ. 2. All the Apostoli Omnes ha­buerunt aequalem Potesta­tem cum Petro. Ibid. Conc. 4. p. 85. Apo­stles had Equal Power with Peter: And then he Ex­plains his meaning thus— Quod sic Intelligo; quod quilibet Apostolus ha­buit Potestatem Ecclesia­sticam in toto Orbe, & ad Omnes Actus ad quos Pe­trus habuit. Ibid. 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 Non loquor de il­lis Actibus, qui spectant ad solum summum Ponti­sicem, ut Congregatio Ge­neralis Concilij. Ibidem. 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 Vid. Hist. Conc. Generalium, per Ed. Ri­cherium Doct. & Socium Sorbonicum. Colon. 1680. where he clearly proves, the first Eight General Councils were call'd by the Emperors. Sorbon Doctor.

5. But to proceed; That Place in Matth. 16. 19. 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 [Page 65] 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 Cap. Solicit. 6. Ex­tra De Major. & Obedi­entiâ. vid. Baron. Tom▪ 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. 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 Cap. unam sanct. 1. De Major. & Obedi­entia. Extravag. Com. Extravagant; which Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 5. c. 7. §. Item; & §. sic enim. Bellar­mine approves, and Leo. X. and his Conc. Lateran. sub Leo. 10. Sess. 11. apud Bi­nium. Tom. 9. p. 153. A. B. Lateran Council (which they call a General one) Inno­vates and Confirms; and yet a late Honoratus Faber Societi [...] Jesu, libro cui Titulus—Una Fi­des, Unius Ecclesiae Rom. Delingae. 1567. cap. 19. Cujus Lemma est; Claves Regni Coelorum Duntaxac Petro Datae fuerunt. Jesuit, expresly tells us, (and you may be sure, with the Prodiit dictus Li­ber, cum facultate Superi­orum, & Privilegio Caesa­reo. 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 Dabo ait, non do; promittit, non dat. Luc. Brugensis in Matth. 16. 19. Ita etiam Faber Sta­pulensis in dictum lo­cum, ut & alij. Vide Ca­tenam Graecorum Pa­trum in Matthaeum à Ni­cetâ Serrarum Episcopo Collectam; & à Balth: Corderio Jesuita Editá Tholos. 1647. & ibi Cy­ril. p. 548. ubi ait, Chri­stum Claves Petro promis­sisse. Matth. 16. 19. Sed non dedisse. Joh. 20. 22. 23.— [...], &c. 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.

[Page 66] 3. But it is certain, that the Power of the Keys (b [...] 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 b [...] St. Matth. 18. 18. Matthew, in the place Cited. Where ou [...] blessed Saviour speaking to all his Disciples, a [...] well as Peter, hath these words— Verily I say unt [...] You, ('tis all [...] &c. Petro dedit Cla­ves cum Liga [...]di Potesta­te; eam vero Potestatem tradidit & Discipulis Om­nibus. Procop. in Isaiae Cap. 61. & p. 715. 716. Potestatem tribuit Aposto­lis. Hieronym in Matth. 18. 18. so even the Po­pish Commentators up­on that Place; Menochi­us. Luc. Brugensis, &c. of them he speaks to) whatsoeve [...] you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heave [...] and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth, shall loosed in Heaven. Here his Promise made befor [...] to Peter, Chap. 16. 19. is made Good to him and the Power of the Keys given him; but 't [...] manifest, that it is (in the same time and Plac [...] equally given to all the Apostles, as well as [...] Peter. Their own Authentick Offices, no [...] 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 th [...] Form— Processionale jux­ta Ritum Ecclesiae Ro­manae restitutum Paris. 1663. p. 205. In Com­mendatione Animae. Orate pro eo Omnes Sancti Aposto [...] Quibus à Domino data est Potestas Ligandi & S [...]vendi. The Power of Binding and Loosin [...] (and so the Power of the Keys) was given to the Apostles, as well as to Peter. This the Manuale dictum. Londini. 1554. p. 72. Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledg [...] that the Power of binding and loosing, was given Paul as well as Peter; and further adds— Quilibet Sacerdos est Vicarius Petri & Pau­li, &c. Ibid. p. 73. Th [...] Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul, and [...] Petri & Pauli ligat & solvit) binds and looseth their stead and place. The Missale dictum Ms. In Formulâ Abso­lutionis. p. 111. 112. Ancient MS. M [...]sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham, says the [...] ­ry same thing; So does Apud Eadmerum Hist. Novorum, per Sel­denum lib. 1. pag. 27. their St. Anselme: a [...] [Page 67] the Old Apud G. Ferrarium De Cath. Eccl. Divi nis Officiis. Romae. 1591 p. 39. in Absolut. plurali & p. 40. In Absolut. singulari. Col. 1. A. B. 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 Catechis. Roman. Paris. 1635. Part. 2. c. 11. De. 10. Symboli Artic. §. 4. 6. Dominus Episcopis tantum & Sacerdotibus hanc Potestatem dedit. Et Idem habemus §. 9. Ibi­dem. Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour. Hence it is, that in their Roman Pontificale Roma­num. Romae. 1611. p. 52. De Ordinat. Presbyteri. 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 Joh. 20. 22. 23. Ac­cipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remisseris peccata, remitt antur eis; & quorum retinueris, retenta sunt. 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 Christus Ascensurus in Coelos, Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit, tanquam Praesides ac Judi­ces, ad quos Omnia mor­talia crimina deferantur; quo, Pro Potestate Clavi­um, remissionis & retenti­onis Sententiam pronunci­ent. Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentia. c. 5. 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 Matth. 16. 19. Conc. Trident. Ibid. c. 6. of Matthew, from which they would (and ge­nerally endeavor to) prove the Popes Summam Absolu­tamque Potestatem, Supre­mum Caput, summumique Pastorem. Luc. Brugensis. in locum Matth. 16. 19. 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 [Page 66] [...] [Page 67] [...] [Page 68] Text— Nos Christi Vices tenentes, in terris, Nobis­que in. Petri Personâ, di­ctum sit, Quodcunque Li­gaveris, &c. Imperatonem Privamus, & Subditos à Juramento fidelitatis ab­solvimus. Apud Binium. Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 2. p. 854. 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 'tis 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 Vide Sacramenta­rium Gregorij Magni, per Hugonem Menardū Paris. 1642. p. 113. In Vi­gilia 88. Petri & Pauli. Where they pray thus— Deus, qui Ligandi Solven­dique Licentiam This A­poslolis Commisisti, &c. Barlaam de Primatu Pa­pae. lib. 2. Confesseth that the Keys were given to Peter— [...], &c. Sed Non illi so­li, sed Pari cum Ipso Dig­nitate, unicuíque è duode­cem. And then he proves, it from Matth. 18. 18. and Joh. 20. 22. 23. The Learned Dan: Huetius cites this, In Notis ad Originem. Part. 2. p. 46. Col. 1. but neither gives, nor pretends to give a­ny Just Answer to it. Only he says—Bar­laamum corrupit [...]. This was easily said, and Barlaam might as easily have answered, Doct [...]ssimum Huetium corrupit [...]. 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 Joh. 20. 21. 22. 23. more (and but one) where­in the Power of the Keys is Actually given to Peter; The words are these— As my Father sent [Page 69] 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 Vide Catechism. Trident. Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. et. loca in Margine notata, in Edit. Paris. 1635. p. 129. & Ibid. §. 9. p. 132. & Part. 2. cap. 5. De Poenitent. §. 12. p. 309. 310. & Ibidem §. 55. p. 339. 340. & Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ. cap. 5. & 6. Margent) and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John, allow it, and tell us truly, Remittuntur eis, ve­rè & reipsâ Judicio meo Patrìsque Coelestis, Soluta sunt in Coelo; quomodo lo­quitur Matth. 16. 19. Luc. Brugensis in Joh. 20. 23. Comment. Tom. 4. pag. 134. Vid. Catenam Graec. Patrum in Johan. per Corderium, ad Joh. 20. 23. p. 459. And Ammo­nius there. 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 'tis 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 Ego, filius Dei, per­functus Vicibus meis, mitto Aequali Authoritate in Mundum Vniversum, vos, quos creavi Apostolos me­os,—Ordino vos Suc­cessores meos—Quod ait Euthymius, Chrysosto­mum secutus—Apostoli tanquam Legati ac Vica­rij Christi, sustinentes Per­sonam ipsius absentis. Luc. Brugensis in Joh. 20. 21. Commentariorum in. 4. Evangelia. Tom. 4. pag. 172. 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 Vicars and Successors of [Page 70] 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 Joh. 20. 21. Father sent me, so send I you. Christ was our great Hebr. 3. 1. Apostle sent immedi­ately [Page 71] by his Father, so that he was Legatus & Vicarius Patris, his Father's Vicar and Ambassa­dor (as St. Deus erat in Chri­sto, quasi in Vicario & Le­gato. Ambros. in. 2. Cor. 5. 19. Explicat. Ambros. Cap. 16. Ambrose says) And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles, as his Vicars and Am­bassadors. So the same Father tells us, in the Deus pro Christo Vicarios dedit Apostolos, ut Pro Ipso praedicarent re­conciliationem. Idem ibi­dem. same place; and St. Paul says as much of 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20. 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 Obsecramus pro Chri­sto; i. e. Loco Christi, cu­jus sumus Ministri. Lyra­nus in locum. 2. Cor. 5. 20. Lyranus, and the Interlinatory Ministerium recon­ciliationis dedit nobis; i. e. Vicariis Apostolis; And again, Legatione fungi­mur pro Christo; i. e. Vice Christi. Glossator, (and they no Lutherans) Explain that place; so the Famous Bishop of Paris, and Fa­ther of the School-men, Peter Dedit quosdam A­postolos; i. e. Vicarios Prae­dicationis suae. Lombard. in Eph. 4. pag. 171. & rursus in. 2. Cor. 5. 19. 20. Dedit Ministerium reconciliationis nobis A­postolis, Vicariis Christi. pag. 125. Col. E. Lombard; so Pope Vide Johan. La­noium Epist. Tom. 6. pag. 292. 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 [Page 72] Vid. Missale Ro­man. ex Decreto Conci­lij Trident. restitutum, Pij. 5. Jussu Editum. Cle­ment. 8. Authoritate re­cognitum; Antv. 1619. Inter Praefationes Missae sine notis. p. 219. ubi in Praefat. De Apostolis, Sic Orant— Aequum est Te Domine supplicitèr ex­orare, ut gregem tuum, Pa­stor aeterne, non deseras; sed per Apostolos tuos, conti­nuâ protectione Custodias; ut iisdem Rectoribus guber­natur, quos operis Tui Vi­carios eidem Contulisti prae­esse Pastores. Hanc O­rationem iisdem plane verbis conceptam, habes in Missali secudum u­sum Yorke, inter Prae­fationes Missales, in Cal­ce Tom. 1. & in Missali secundum usum Ecclesiae Salisburiensis. Inter Prae­fationes Missales. And Guil: Estius the Learned Professor and Chancel­lor of the University of Doway, expresly ap­proves, and confirms this; in his Comment. on the. 2. Cor. 5. 20. Postquam Sublatus est Christus in Coelum, Nos (Apostoli) Illius Vices Gerimus in terrâ. Deus igitur primus Author, Chri­stus Minister principalis, Nos (Apostoli) Ministri secundarij, at que Vicarij, A Deo & Christo Missi. 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 Matth. 18, 18. Joh. 20. 22. 23. 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 [Page 73] Learning, even So Pope. Bonif. 8. urges that Place, Matth. 16. 19. Quodcunque Li­gaveris, &c. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Com­mun. And Innocent. 4. Justifies his Deposing the Emperor, (as is a­foresaid) from those words— Quodcun­que Ligaveris, and the Power given to Peter and the Pope by them. Binius Concil. Tom. 7. Part. 2. pag. 854. Edit. Paris. 1636. And Gregory. 7. cites the same Place, to the same purpose. Lib. 8. Epist. 21. And the same Gregory grounds his Excommunication of the Emperor Hen. 4. upon the Power of the Keys. Mihi est Potestas data Ligandi in Coelo & Terrâ. Hac Ideo Fiduciâ Fretus, Henrico totius Regni Teutonicorum & Italiae gubernacula Contradico, & Omnes Christianos à vincu­lo Juramenti, quod sibi fecere, ant facient, absolvo. Baronius Annal. Tom. 11. Ad Ann. 1076. §§. 25. 26. 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 Petrus & Paulus ambo Principes. Card. Cusanus. Epist. 2. De u­su Communionis ad Bo­hemos. Operum. p. 836. Edit. Basil. 1565. Ecclesiae Principes, Princes of the Catholick Church; That they ( both of them) had the Nec Mysterio ca­ret, Romanum Pontificem. Authoritate Petri & Pau­li Ligare & Solvere. I­dem ibid. Power of the Keys, power to bind and loose; and both of them had it De utriusque tam Petri inter Judaeos, quam Pauli inter Gentes Primatu, Immediate à Christo Vtrique Collato. And this he proves, out of Ambrose on the Galat. 2. 7. who says the same thing. Idem ibidem. Immediately from our blessed [Page 74] Saviour; That as Peter was Potuit utérque ubi (que) Ecclesias fundare, tam in Circumcisione, quam praepu­tio; Licet Principalis Com­missio cum Primatu, Petri fuerit in Circumcisione, & Pauli in Praeputio. Idem ibidem. 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 Nec in hoc Alter Alteri Suberat, sed Ambo sub Christo Immediate. I­dem ibidem. 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 Cyprian says, That the Bishop is— Judex Vice Christi, and that the Bishops, Apostolis Vicariâ Ordinatione succedunt. This Rigaltius observes; And adds, Ecce Episcopos, avo jam Cypriani, Vicarios Christi. Rigalt. Observat. in Epist. Cypr. p. 73. And a little after,— Epis­copus est Dei Sacerdos, & Vicarius Christi. 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 Synodus declarat Episcopos, qui in Aposto­lorum locum successerunt. Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. De Sacramento Ordin. c. 4. Apostolorum Suc­cessores, Successors of the Apostles. 2. That our blessed Saviour, when he was about to As­cend into Heaven, Christus Ascensu­rus, Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit, &c. Con. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenit. c. 5. de Confessione. left Sacerdotes (that Vid. Ibid. c. 6. De Minist. Sacramenti Poe­nitent. where it is evi­dent, that by Sacerdotes, c. 5. all Bishops & Priests are meant; And that it should be sure that they are meant, in the Index of that Council these words are expresly set down,— Saoerdotes sunt Vicarij Christi. And refer to the. 14. Sess. c. 5. before Cited. In Edit. Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633.is Bishops and other Priests) his Vicars, [Page 75] 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 Party, have no better ground in Scripture, (then the Places a­bove mention'd) to prove and support that vast Papal Supremacy, they most vainly and ir­rationally pretend to; the whole Fabrick must of necessity fall. It being impossible that so vast a Superstruction as their Popish Monarchy should be so sustain'd, by such Reasons which are so far from being Cogent, that they are al­together Impertinent.

Well; Object. but if these will not prove (what they are produc'd for) the Popes Supremacy; other Texts they bring, with as much Noise and Confi­dence as they did the former, and (if that be pos­sible) with less Reason or Consequence. For In­stance, they Ci [...]e (to prove the Pope's Supremacy over the whole Church, even over all the other Apostles) Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Pasce Oves meas, Feed my Sheep. And tell us— Christus in Coelum abiturus, hic suum creatum Vicarium designat ac sum­mum Pontificem creat Pe­trum; Promiserat Christus Id Ipsum Petro. Matth. 16. 18. Sed hoc loco praestat; eumque Principem & Pa­storem Totius Ecclesiae Constituit. Corn: A La­pide in Joh. 21. 15. pag. 546. That our blessed Sa­viour leaving the World, did create Peter his Vicar, and highest Priest, and Prince of the Vniversal Church, which he had promised before, Matth. 16. 18, and now perform'd that promise. And again (they say)— Ex hoc loco patet S. Petrum (& Ejus Suc­cessores Rom. Pontifices) esse Caput & Principem Ecclesiae, Omnésque fideles, & jam Apostolos ipsi Sub­jici, & ab eo pasci & Re­gi debere. Idem ibid. pag. 547. Col. 2. It appears from this place, That Peter ( and his Successors Popes of Rome) is Head and Prince of the Church, and that all the Faithful, even the Apostles are made Subjects to him, to be fed and ruled by him. This place is urged by Pope Innocent the Third to the like (though God knows little) purpose: who would have us understand by those [Page 76] words, Feed my Sheep; that our blessed Saviour Ait Christus Petro & Successoribus: Pasce O­ves meas; non distinguens inter has oves & alias: ut alienum à suo ovili de­monstraret, qui Petrum & Successores Ipsius, Magi­stros non recognosceret & Pastores. Cap. Solicit. 6. Extrav. de Majorit. & O­bedientiâ. meant all his Sheep, all good Christians. That he might shew, (says that Pope) that they were none of our blessed Saviours Sheep, who would not Acknow­ledge Peter and the Popes of Rome to be their Ma­sters and Pastors. And (to name no more) Pope Boniface. VIII. indeavours to prove, that our bles­sed Saviour by those words, Feed my Sheep, meant Vniversally all his Sheep Pasce Oves, inquit, & generalitèr non singula­ritèr has vel illas: per quod Commisisse sibi Intelli­gitur Vniversas. Cap. u­nam Sanctam. 1. De Ma­jor. & Obedientiâ. Ex­trav. Commun. Ita. Tiri­nus Reliquique passim. in Joh. 21. 15.— because he does not say singularly these or those, but generally Feed my Sheep: And from this Place so Expounded, they would prove Peter' s, and so the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy o­ver all Christians, even the Apostles, Kings, and Em­perors.

1. Were it not certain, Answer. that there is no possi­bility that any man should bring a true and con­cluding Reason to prove an erroneous and false Position; it would hardly be credible that other­wise Learned men, furnished with great Parts of Art and Nature, should bring such miserable Stuff, such misapply'd and misunderstood Scripture, to prove that great The Popes Supre­macy consists in this, that he is, Petri Successor, & Christi verus & legiti­mus in terris Vicarius. Catechis. Trid. Part. 2. c. 7. §. 28. p. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. And this an Article of their Creed, (I mean their new Creed) to which they swear (all who have a­ny Dignities, Cure of Souls, &c. Vide Bullam Pij Papae 4. Super forma professionis fidei in Con­cil. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. post. cap. 12. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Article of their Popes Su­premacy; which being a manifest Errour, with­out any Foundation in Scripture or Primitive Antiquity, I cannot blame them, for not bring­ing (what they neither have, nor can have) better Arguments; but that they bring any at all, to establish that, which they ought, and with evident and cogent Reasons, might confute.

2. As Antiquity did, so we do grant (all that with any Reason or Just ground they can desire) that Peter had a Primacy of Order (but not of [Page 77] Power or Jurisdiction) amongst the Apostles. For the Evangelist naming the Apostles, Matth. 10. 2. says— The First was Peter. First in Order, or (if you will) first respectu vocationis; as first call'd by our blessed Saviour; not to be one of his Disciples; for so Andrew was call'd before him (as is evident in the Joh. 1. 40. 41. 42. Text) but in respect of his Call to be an Apostle. For when, out of his Disciples he chose Twelve to be his Apostles, Matthew (in the Place Cited) saith; The first was Peter. So we grant to the Bishop of Rome (what anciently was given him) a Primacy of Order, and Precedency, before all the Bishops in the Roman Empire; But not Jure Divino, by Divine Right (which with­out all Reason, Catechis. Trid. in the Place and Section last Cited, says— Romanus Pontifex est E­piscoporum Maximus; Id­que Jure Divino. Thats the Lemma to that Se­ction. And then 'tis ad­ded, That the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope, Nullis Synodicis, aut Hu­manis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitùs data est. they pretend to) but by the Consent of the Ancient Fathers and Councils. And for this, we have the Synodical Definition and Declaration of Six hundred and thirty Fathers in an Ancient and received General Council; who said— [...]. &c. Etenim Antiquae Ro­mae Throno, quod Vrbs il­la Imperaret, Jure Patres Privilegiadederunt. Conc. Chalcedon. Can. 28. A­pud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 446. That because old Rome was the Imperial City, therefore the Fathers had rightly given Privi­ledges to the Episcopal Seat of that City. Where it is evident, that in the Judgment of that great and good Council, (and of the General Council of Conc. Const. 1. Can. 5. apud bin. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 661. Episco­pus Constantinopolitanus habere debet. Primatûs Honorem Post Romanum Episcopum, quia Civitas illa est nova Roma. Constantinople too, which they there Cite.) 1. That the Priviledge and Precedency the Bishop of Rome had, was not Convey'd to him by any Divine Right (as they now pretend) non à Christo vel Petro, sed à Patribus; it was the Fathers who gave them. 2. And the Reason why they gave him such Priviledge, and Precedency, was not be­cause he was Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor, [Page 78] but because Rome was Vrbs Imperialis, the great Metropolis of the Roman Empire. I know the Popes Legats in that Council, did what they could to hinder the passing that Canon, and Pope Leo out of it, (when the Canon was passed) did oppose it, as much as he was able, but in vain. For the Canon was Synodically passed, by the Con­current Consent of the whole Vid. Binium Conc. Tom. 3. Edit. Paris. 1636. pag. 461. & pag. 464. [...], &c. Council, (the Popes Legats excepted, which was acknowledg'd by the [...]. Binius ibidem. p. 463. E. F. & 464. D. Judges, and then Vide Edictum Valentiniani & Marcia­ni. Ibid. pag. 476. 477. [...] &c. Uni­versi ideo quae à Synodo Chalcedonensi Constituta sunt, Custodire debent. Et vide ibid. p. 477 478. E­dictum Marciani, de Confirmatione Synodi Chalcedonensis. Confirm'd by the Emperor, and Received into the Codex Cano­num Ecclesiae Vniversae. That which troubled the Pope, was, that Constantinople should have Equal Pri­viledges with Rome (Precedency only expected) e­ven in all Ecclesiastical business; and that (by the Canon of that great Council, and Confirmation of the Emperor) the Patriarch of Constantinople should have so vast a Territory under his Jurisdi­ction, to wit, Three whole Dioceses, ( Thracica, A­siana, Pontica,) more then (by any Law of God or Man) the Pope ever had under him. And 'tis here observeable, that although this Canon (gi­ving Equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constanti­nople, as to him of Old Rome (Precedency only excepted) absolutely deny'd that Monarchical Su­premacy and Jurisdiction over all Patriarchs, (which the Popes were then nibling at, and have since openly own'd) yet Leo in his Epistles to the Binius ibid. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 480.Emperor, Ibid. pag. 479. Anatolius, Ibid. pag. 481. Pulchoria Augusta, &c. wherein he writes fiercely against this Canon, never pretended (as afterwards, and now they do) That the Bishops of Rome had by Divine So Pope Nicol. 1. tells us, That Primatûs Sedis Romanae non à Patri­bus, aut Imperiali Civita­te, sed à Christo & Beato Petro. Vid. Binium Conc. Tom. 6. p. 508. Col. 2. F. Edit. Paris. 1636. & pag. 513. Col. 2. C. So the Trent. Catechis. part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. Papa Rom. Suprematum habet— Non ullis Synodicis, aut humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitùs, &c. See the Authorities they there urge for it. p. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. Right, [Page 79] (as Vicars of our blessed Saviour) a Supream Ju­risdiction over all Bishops and Patriarchs in the whole World: but complains of Anatolius Apud Binium ubi supra. pag. 479. E. his pride, (Catalina Cethegum) the Violation of the Nicene Canons, and the wrong done to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. To talk of such a Mo­narchical Supremacy then, as the Popes have since pretended to; Pope Leo neither did, nor durst; it was a Doctrine unheard of in those purer times; and had he challenged it then, as due to him by Divine Right, as he was Christ's Vicar, he would have made himself Odious, and (having no ground for such a Challenge) ridiculous to the Christian World. But when (notwithstanding all his Le­gates could do in the Council, or he out of it) the Canon pass'd, by the Unanimous Consent of the Council, and was Confirm'd by the Imperial and Supream Power of the Emperor; (for the Pope does Petition and Clementiam vestram Precor, & Sedulâ Sugge­stione Obsecro, &c. Ita Leo Papa in Epist. Marciano Imperatori, Apud Bini­um. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 481. Col. 1. B. Supplicate to him as his Superior) though the Pope in a Private Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta (with great Insolence, and without any Ground) pretends to Consensiones Epis­coporum (even those in the General Council at Chalcedon he means) in irritum mittimus, & per Authoritatem Beati Pe­tri, Generali Definitione Cassamus. Leo Papa in Epist. ad Pulcheriam, a­pud Binium. Tom. 3. p. 482. B. Cassate and null that Canon by the Authority of St. Peter, (who never had any such Authority to Null any Just Imperial or Synodical Constitutions) yet that Canon was approved, received, and (as de Jure it ought) Obey'd by the Eastern Churches, both then, and ever It was in terminis Confirm'd in the sixth General Council at Con­stantinople. Can. 36. And the second General Council at Constantinople. Can. 5. give the same precedence to the Bi­shop of Byzantium, which the Council of Chalcedon does. after. When these Pretensi­ons of the Pope and his Legats prevailed not, nor were regarded by the Council, or Emperor, or the Eastern Church; other Arts were used at Rome, to Conceal that Canon (which they could not [Page 80] Cassate) from the knowledge of the Western Church. And to this end, 1. They Corrupt the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis (the most Au­thentick Book, next to the Bible, the Christian Church has, or ever had) Dionysius Exi­guus Abbas-Romanus sub Justiniano, Circa An. 540. as Trithemius, or. 520. as others. Dionysius Exiguus a Roman-Abbot, begins that Impious Work; and in his Latin Translation of that Code (amongst other things) leaves out that Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and So Isiodor. Jac. Merlinus. Paris. 3535. Codex Canonum vetus Eccl. Romanae. Edit. 2. Mogunt. 1525. dein Pa­ris. 1619. Editio Latina prisca Canonum, Apud Justell. Biblioth. Tom. 1. p. 300. So Pet. Crabb. Joverius. Joh. Sichardus. Post Opera D. Clement. Paris. 1568. &c. others of the Popish Party, follow him. 2. They Corrupt the Can Renovantes. 6. Dist. 22. Petimus, ut Constantinopolitana Sedes Similia Privilegia, quae Superior Roma habet, ac­cipiat; Non tamen in Ec­clesiasticis rebus magnifice­tur ut illa, &c. So Grati­an in the Old Editions, as is Confess'd. Vid. Cor­pus Jur. Can. Cum Glos­sis. Paris. 1612. & sine Glossis. Paris. 1618. & ibi Notas ad hunc Cano­nem. Canon it self; and by putting in other words in their false Translation, they make it con­tradict the Greek Canon, and the certain Sense of the Council that made it. So in Gratian, the Cor­ruptions of this Canon, are thus—

1. For [...] ( aequalia Privilegia) in the O­riginal Greek; Gratian has Similia Privilegia; like, but not equal Priviledges.

2. For [...], ( Senior Roma) Gratian has Superior Roma—Old Rome must be Superior to New Rome, or Constantinople, if Forgery and Falsification of Records can do it: for better Grounds they have none.

3. For, [...], etiam in Ecclesiasti­cis magnificetur ut illa. Gratian impudently reads, Non Tamen in Ecclesiasticis, &c.

But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legats could do, and all their other Indirect Arts afterwards, this Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was received in the Christian [Page 81] World, and long after Confirmed by General Councils, not only by the Synodus 6. Generalis, which was held Anno 681. (of which a little be­fore) But the Eighth General Council under Pope Adrian. II. about the Year 870. gives that Definimus neminem Mundi Potentum, quen­quam qui Patriarchalibus praesunt Sedibus, in honora­re praecipuè sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae, de­inceps autem Constantino­poleos Patriarcham, deinde Alexandriae, &c. Ita Sy­nodus. 8. habita sub A­driano Papa. Can. 21. And this an approved Council at Rome. Pre­cedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him; And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their Gratian. Can. De­finimus. 7. Dist. 22. Vid. Glossam Ibid. Canon Law, in the best Editions of it, Revised and Corrected by Pope Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. dat. Romae. 1. Julij 1580. Juri Canonico praefixam. Edit. Paris. 1612. & 1618. Gregory. XIII. And 'tis to be observed, that this Synodus. 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legats there, and was then, and still is approved and received at Rome: Nor need we wonder at it, For what it did, was carried chiefly by the Popes Authority, who was by that Council, basely and servilly flatter'd; they Calling him Most [...]. In Epist. Synod. 8. ad Adrianum. Apud Binium Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 1. p 984. Holy and Oecumenical Pope, and Equal to the Angels, &c. This Title Oecumenical, the Pope took kindly then, though his Predecessor Vid. Greg. Maj. Regist. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 34. 36. 38. & l. 6. Epist. 30. & l. 7. Epist. 30. pag. 220. Gregory the Great ab­horr'd it, as Antichristian. But to return to the Objection.

3. And here before I give a Particular and Di­stinct Answer to this Place of John, (Feed my Sheep) on which they commonly (and vainly) build the Popes Supremacy; I shall crave leave, a little to Explain, the nature and measure of that Power which they give the Pope under the name of his Supremacy. And here they say, That our blessed Saviour gave His own Power to Peter, made him his Vicar, Head and Pastor of all the Faithful in the World; and that in most ample Words, when he bad [Page 82] him, Feed his Sheep, and that it was our blessed Sa­viours Will, that all Peter' s Successors should have the very same Power, which Peter had; (so the Trent Salvator Noster Pe­trum suae Potestatis Vica­rium praefecit; & Vni­versi Fidelium generis Ca­put & Pastorem Constituit, cum illi Oves suas pascen­das, Verbis Amplissimis Commendavit; ut qui ei successit, Eandem planè Totius Ecclesiae Regendae Potestatem habere volù­rit. Catechis. Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus. Part. 1. c. 10. §: 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1634. Vid. N. Ri­galtij Observat. Galea­tam, Notis suis in Cy­prianum praefixam. Catechism tells us) And this is that Plenitude of Power by which they Erroneously and Impiously Depose Kings and Emperors, and (as Pius. V. does, in this Bull, we are now speaking of, against Queen Elizabeth) absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and sworn or natural Fidelity. This premised, I shall proceed to a direct (and I hope a full and satisfying) Answer to that place in John, Feed my Sheep: &c. And here I consi­der,

1. That, if the Supremacy was first given to Peter, in those words— John 21. 15. 16. Pasce Oves, Feed my Sheep, (as is confess'd, and by our Adversaries posi­tively affirm'd in the Objection) which was af­ter our blessed Saviours Resurrection: then it is Evident he had it not before: It being impos­sible he should have it before it was given him. And then it will as Evidently follow, that all those Places in the Gospel, spoken of, or to Pe­ter, before our blessed Saviour's Passion, are Im­pertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy, which he had not till after the Resurrection. And yet Innocent. III. Boniface. VIII. and other Popes in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions, the Ca­nonists, School-men, and Commentators usu­ally Cite many places in the Gospel (besides this, Pasce Oves) to prove that Peter had the Supre­macy before our blessed Saviour's Passion; which here they Confess was not given him till after [Page 83] the Resurrection. That they do urge many such Places is known to all Learned men, vers'd in these Controversies; but if any man doubt of it, and desire Satisfaction, I shall refer him to what a Learned Popish Writer (and Capucine) has said in the Vide Epitomen Canon. &c. per Greg. De Rives Capucinum. Lugd. 1603. Tract. de Primatu, p. 3. 4. where for Peter's Supremacy, he cites Matth. 16. 17. 18. 19. Super hanc Pe­tram: & dabo Tibi Cla­ves: Matth. 10. 2. Pri­mus Petrus. Matth. 17. 27. Christ paid Tribute only for himself and Peter. Joh. 1. 43. Thou shalt be called Cephas. Joh. 21. 7. 8. Peter alone cast him­self into the Sea. Matth. 14. 28. He calls Peter only to come to him; Et ita Vnicum se Christi Vicarium designavit. Matth. 18. 21. Matth. 19. 27. Mark. 14. 37. He said only to Peter, Simon sleepest thou. Others Cite for Peter's Supremacy, Luk. 22. 38. Here are two Swords. So Pope Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Extrav. Commun. vide Glossam. verbo, Coelestis. Can. Omnes. 1. Dist. 22. Though their proofs from all those Places, (and they have no better) are not on­ly Inconsequent, and Erroneous, but indeed Ridiculous. Vid. Tho. Campegium, Episc. Feltren­sem, De Potestate Romani Pontificis. Venet. 1555. Cap. 4. 5. Opus Paulo. 4. Papae dedicat. ubi loca haec & plura, ad probandum Papae Suprematum, vanè adducit, & ridicule explicat. vid. etiam Bellarmin. De Romano Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 10. 11. 12. & inde ad cap. 24. Inclusivè. Margent, where he tells us, how many places are Cited for the Supre­macy.

2. When our blessed Saviour says, Pasce Oves, Feed my Sheep, and Feed my Lambs; he useth two words— [...] and [...]. Both which words the Vulgar Latin renders, Pasce, feed my Sheep and Lambs: Now their Commentators on this place, (to very little purpose) make a great stir and pudder to shew (what 'Tis certain, and confess'd, that [...] s [...]gnifies to rule. Kings are call'd [...], populi pastores. So Me­nelaus and Agamemnon u­sually in Homer, and in Hesychius [...]. And [...]. And the Gloss. veteres in Galce Cyrilli, [...] pecor, a pasco and [...], Rego. none denys) that [...] signifies to rule and govern. But let the word signifie what it will, in the Ci­vil State, yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word, where our blessed Saviours Lambs and Sheep (that is the Faithful) are to be fed, every Bishop and Presbyter (as well as Pe­ter) are [...], Pastores, and may and ought [...], to feed the [...]lock of Christ. So, 1. St. [Page 84] Paul tells us, Act. 20. 17. [...]. The Presbyters of that Church. who from Miletum, sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus, (I say Presbyters, for Timothy, who was their first Bishop, was with Paul at Act. 20. 4. 6. Miletum, and so was none of those he sent for) and when they came, he Exhorts them to take heed unto themselves, and the Flock, Vers. 28. cap 20. [...] &c. To feed the Church of God, &c. where St. Paul (when he bids the Presbyters feed the Church) useth the very same word our blessed Saviour doth, when he bids Peter feed his Sheep. 2. So 1. Pet. 5. 2. [...]. Peter himself (who little dream'd of any Supremacy given him by those words, Feed my Sheep) writing to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews, and Exhorting the Jewish Elders, (or Pres­byters) to a diligent care, in feeding the Flock; he useth the very same word to them, our blessed Saviour did to him, [...] (says he) Feed the Flock; He thinks it their duty, as well as his, to feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep. And that which further, and ( ad hominem) more strongly confirms what I have said (in this Par­ticular) is; That our Adversaries grant (though in Contradiction to the Sense many of them [...]ive of those words, Feed my Sheep, when they [...]ould build the Popes Supremacy upon them) [...]hat the word [...], both as it signifies to rule and feed, and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviours Sheep, is so far from being Peculiar to Peter, or proving his Supremacy, that it is the Duty, not only of Peter, but of every Bishop in the Christian World, both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep. This [Page 85] the Episcopi ( says that Catechism) singulis Epis­copatibus praepos [...]i sunt, [...]t Caeteros Ecclesiae Mini­stros, & fidelium populum Regant, & eorum saluti summâ Curâ Prospiciant; unde in Sacris Literis Pa­stores Ovium) saepe Appel­lantur. Catechis. Trid. part. 2. cap. 7. §. 26. pag. 389. 390. Editionis Pa­ris. 1635. Trent Catechism expresly affirms, That all Bishops (as well as Peter) are Pastores, Pa­stors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour; and to prove this, they Cite the Two very Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. places which I (a little be­fore) produced to the same purpose, whence it manifestly appears, That even in our Adversa­ries Judgment, (when the Popes Supremacy is a little out of their Head) the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep, is not Peter' s Supream Preroga­tive, but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World.

3. But this (though enough) is not all; we have greater (and with them Infallible, and therefore undeniable) Authority to confirm what I have said, and Confute our Adversa­ries, as to their proof of Peter's, or the Pope's Supremacy, from those words, Feed my Sheep. For their Trent Council (which if the Pope say true, was Dominus Patres Tridentinos Divinitùs Inspirare dignatus est. Pius Papa. 4. in Bullà su­per formâ Juramenti professionis Fidei. Divinely Inspired, and therefore Infallible; and if he do not say true, he himself was not only fallible but actually false) expresly tells us, That not only every Bishop, but every one Praecepto Divino Mandatum est Omnibus, quibus Animarum Cura Commissa est, Oves Ag­noscere, pro iis Sacrifici­um offerre, verbi praedica­tione, Sacramentorum Ad­ministratione, ac bonorum operum Exemplo pascere, pauperum curam paternam gerere, & in Caetera Mu­nia Pastoralia incumbere—ideo Synodus eos ad­monet, ut praeceptorum di­vinorum memores, in Judi­cio & veritate Pascant & Regant. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. De Reformat. cap. 1. Edit. Antv [...]rp. 1633. pag. 284. who had Cure of Souls, was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel, to rule and feed his Sheep, by offering Sacrifices for them, by preaching the Word, Administring the Sacraments, by good Exam­ple, by a Paternal Care of the Poor, and All O­ther Pastoral Offices. And this is there proved by Texts, quoted in the Margent; which (with some others) are the very same with those I have (a little before) cited out of [Page 86] the Act. 20. 28. Acts of the Apostles, and 1. Pet. 5. 2. St. Pe­ters Epistle: Nor those only, but this very place of Joh. 21. 15. 16. St. John (on which they would build Peter's Supremacy) is Cited in the Mar­gent, as containing a Precept obliging (not Pe­ter only, but) All, who had Cure of souls, to feed Christ's sheep. Now if those words, Feed my sheep, contain Praeceptum, a Precept, Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty; then they do not contain (what they pretend) Donum, a Dona­tion of Supremacy.

4. But Pope Boniface. VIII. and Pope Innocent. III. in their before mention'd That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Ex­travag. Commun. and that of Innocent. 3. cap. Solicitae. 6. extra eodem Titulo. Constitutions, tell us; that by Oves meas, our blessed Saviour means, All his sheep, All Christians in the World▪ Because he does not speak singularitèr of these or those; but Generalitèr of his sheep. Whence they, (and many after them) conclude, Tha [...] our blessed Saviour Committed all his Sheep Universally to Peter's Care, so that even the Apostles, (being his Sheep) were commit­ted to Peter's Care, and by Consequence, he be­came their Pastor and Superior. Certainly they who reason at this rate, and so irrationally may possibly be fit Pastors to feed Sheep and Oxen, and such other brutish Cattle, but sure­ly not to feed Men and Christians. For▪ 1. Feed my sheep, (as all know, unless they b [...] such as those two Popes were) is an Indefinite Proposition: and then any Novice or young [...] Sophister in the University, could have truly told them, That Propositio indefinita in materi [...] [Page 87] Contingenti, (as this evidently is) aequivalet par­ticulari. When we say men are young or wise, or learned; we mean, not all, but some are such. So he who says, Christ's sheep are to be fed by Pe­ter; must mean some of them are to be fed by him, pro loco & tempore, as he had place and time to meet with them. It being impossible he should feed them Maldonut. speak­ing of Matth. 28. 19. where our blessed Savi­our gives Commission to all his Apostles— Go ye therefore into All the World, &c. He says thus— Non fieri po­terat ut Singuli omnes ter­rae partes peragrarent, Gen­tésque Omnes docerent; néque erat necessarium. Quid enim erat Opus, ut Omnes à singulis, modo Omnes ab hominibus, aliae ab aliis docerentur. Mal­donat. in Joh. 21. 15. 16. &c. §. 65. p. 1889. E. This he says, and truly. But then he should have con­sider'd, that if it was im­possible for every one of the Apostles to teach all the world; then it will be impossible for any one. Impossible for Pe­ter to feed all Christ's Sheep in the whole world: and yet this he endeavours to prove— Quicunque intra Ecclesi­am erant, Petro pas [...]endos tradit. Dicit enim pasce O­ves, non has, aut illas, fed pasce Oves meas. Omniu [...]i ergo suarum Ovium curam illi dedit. Ibid. §. 62. all. There were ma­ny thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep, whom Peter never did, nor could see, nor they hear him: And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tye him to Impossibilities. 2. When they say, (which is evidently untrue) that by those words— Feed my sheep, all the Faithful are meant, and are Committed to Pe­ter's care and charge; and therefore the Ex hoc loco ( Joh. 21. 15.) patet Sanctum Pe­trum (& Ejus Successores Romanos Pontifices) esse Caput & Principem Eccle­siae, Omnésque fideles, eti­am Apostolos Ipsi Subjici, & ab eo Pasci & Regi debere. Corn. A Lapide, in Joh. 21. 15. p. 547. Col. 2. A­postles themselves (being our Saviour's Sheep as well as others) are part of his Charge; and under his Jurisdiction. This they say indeed usually, but (miserably mistaken) only say it. For they neither have, nor can have any Just Ground or Reason for it. For it is certain, 1. That our blessed Saviour, is (to his whole Church) the only Heb. 4. 14. [...]. High Priest, the 1. Pet. 5. 4. [...]. Prince of all the Pastors, and the Grand Heb. 13. 20. [...] Shep­herd of the sheep; and as King, has Imperial Pow­er to Rule and Govern them. 2. It is certain, the Apostles (from and under him) are Pasto­res and Shepherds, as well as Peter, to feed the Flock. But their Power is Ministerial, not Im­perial. [Page 88] Even the Apostleship it self is Act. 1. 17. 25. [...] a Ministery, and they Ministers of Christ, and his 2. Cor. 4. 5. Church. Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd, they are Sheep, even Peter himself: yet (on Earth) they are Shep­herds only, not Sheep, neither in respect of the Church, over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds; nor in relation one to another. Paul, or James, or John, are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter, to be fed and ruled by him, then he to be fed and ruled by them▪ And therefore to say (as our Adversaries vainly do) that in those words, Feed my sheep; Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles, as his Charge, (who were Shepherds only, and Sheep to no Superior Pastor, except our blessed Saviour; And by their Apostolical Commission Hoc erant Caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus; Pari Consortio praediti & Honoris, & Potestatis, Cy­prian. de Unit. Eccles. p. 208. Edit. Rigaltij. Pasto­res sunt Omnes Apostoli, sed Grex Vnus, qui ab Om­nibus unanimi Consensione Pascatur. Pasce Oves me­as, belong'd equally to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, in Cyprian' s Opinion, as shall ap­pear anon. Equal to himself) is irratio­nal; without any ground in Scripture, or purer Antiquity. There is another Metaphor con­cerning the Apostles, and their Feeding and Building the Church, which may illustrate this business, All the Apostles (as well and as much as Peter) are in Scripture call'd Foundations [...] the Church, converted, fed, and confirm'd by them. In respect of Christ, our blessed Savi­our (who is the only prime and principal firm [...] Rock on which the Church is built) they are ( all of them) Superstructions; but in respect of the Christian Church, Foundations; and that without any dependence upon Peter; he is not the Foundation on which they are built, but [Page 89] but both he and they immediately upon the Prime Rock and Foundation, Jesus Christ: So that as the Apostles are Superstructures in the House of God (the Church) in Respect of Christ, the Prime firm Foundation; and none of them Superstructures, in respect of Peter: being neither built upon him, nor made Super­structions by him, by his Feeding or Ruling them: So they (and Peter too) are Sheep in Re­spect of our blessed Saviour, the great Shep­herd of the Sheep; but not in respect of Pe­ter; they are Shepherds as well as he, and never Committed to his Care or Cure, that (as his Sheep) he should feed and govern them: And as all the other Apostles (in Respect of Peter) were Foundations & Shepherds of the Church, coordinate with, and equal to him: So all o­ther Bishops, the Apostles Successors, were E­qual to Peter's pretended Successor (the Bishop of Rome) and no way bound to give any Reason of their Administration to him, as to their Su­perior; much less as to a Supream Prince and Monarch of the Christian World, as the Ca­nonists, Jesuits, and the Popish Party, do now Erroneously and Impiously miscall him. This was Cyprian's Opinion, in the Place but now Cited; And Rigaltius (a Learned Roman Catho­lick) though he Nicol. Regaltius in Observatione Galea­ta, Notis suis ad Cypri­ani Opera praesixa. seem to say much for Peter's and the Popes Supremacy; yet he Con­fesseth, (as upon a serious Consideration of se­veral Passages in Vid. Cypr. Epist. 67. p. 128. 129. Edit. Ri­galtii: & Epist. 72. Ibid. p. 142. in Cal [...]e dictae E­pistolae, &c. & Epist. 55. p. 95. Cyprian, and the African Councils, well he might) That Cyprian's Singulis Pastoribus Episcopis portionem gregis esse adscriptam, quam re­gat unusquisque; Actus sui, sive Administrationis suae rationem redditurus; Non Romae, sed in Coelis; Non Cornelio, sed Christo—Negat ( Cypria­nus) Ecclesiae Romanae Vllas ess [...] Partes in Causa Novatiani, peractâ jam in Africâ Cognitione damn [...]ti. ( There lay no Appeal to the Pope, as Superior to the Bishops of Africa). Rigalti [...]s in Notis ad [...] [...] ­stolam 55. p. 95. & No­tarum p. 77. 78. Opi­nion [Page 90] was, That all Bishops were equal, and were bound to give an Account of their Administration to our blessed Saviour Only, and not to any Superior Bishop, no not to Peter' s Successor, the Pope. Nor is it any way probable, that a Person so Excel­lent and Knowing as Cyprian, should think o­therwise; seeing in his time (as is notorious and well known to all who know Antiquity) there was no Patriarch or Archbishop Superior (by a­ny Law of God or Man) to the Ordinary Bi­shops, (as may, and when there is an Opportu­nity, shall be made Good.) It is true, Cyprian (if it be he, and not the Interpolator of that Tract) says, That the Primacy Cyprian De Uni­tate Ecclesiae, pag. 208. apud Rigaltium. Hoc [...]rant Caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Potrus, Pari Consortio praediti honoris & Potesta­tis; sed Primatus Petro datur. was given to Peter; and that the Church of Rome was The Cyprian. Epist. 55. ad Cornelium, pag. 95. Ad Petri Cathedram, & ad Ecclesiam Principalem, un­de unitas exorta est. Principal Church. Now this Primacy, and Prin­cipality Cyprian speaks of, is, by me before, and now freely granted. A Primacy of Order and Precedency, not of Jurisdiction, or that Monar­chical Authority, which (Anciently was not pre­tended to by themselves) they now contend for. And this Primacy, which anciently was allowed to the Bishop of Rome, was not from our blessed Saviour's gift, but the greatness of that Imperial City; Non à [...] &c. Quia Vrbs illa Imperaret, Patres de­derunt Privilegia. Conc. Chalcedonense. Can. 28. Petro, sed à Pa­tribus, (as the Canon of Chalcedon tells us.) And that which makes it more probable, that I have given the true Sense of Cyprian, is; That Rigaltius (a Learned Roman Catholick) in his Dissertations, and Notes on Cyprian, Explains Cyprian's meaning just as I have done, reducing the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Church, [Page 91] not from any Prerogative given to that Bishop or Church by our blessed Saviour, but from the greatness of that Ad Ecclesiam Prin­cipalem] Id est, in Vrbe Principali Constitutam. Rigaltius ad Epist. Cy­prian. 55. p. 78. Notarum Imperial City: And then Cites the Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, which in Terminis, and (when Tran­slated) in plain English, says the very same thing I have done. And indeed that Canon, made by Six hundred and thirty Fathers Synodically met, in a legitimate General Council, confirm'd by Justiniani Constit. Novel. 115. Cap. 3. §. 14. Graeco-Lat. Lugd. 1571. p. 745. & Novel. Const. 131. cap. 1. ibid. p. 1056. where the Emperor says— [...] &c. dictarum quatuor Sy­nodorum dogmata, sicut Sanctas Scripturas accipi­mus, & Canones sicut Le­ges Observamus. Imperial Edicts, and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae, does Authen­tickly and utterly overthrow that vast Monar­chical Supremacy, which the Pope and his Par­ty for some Ages last past (without any just ground) contend for. If any of our Adversa­ries think otherwise, (as possibly they may) I shall make them this fair offer; Let them bring me any Canon, of any General Council (of equal Authority and Antiquity with this of Chalcedon) by which they can prove the Popes pretended Supremacy, (or any one Article of their own new Trent Creed). And for the fu­ture, I shall acquiesce, and they shall have my Thanks and Subscription.

6. Observ. 6. Pius. V. in his Bull says further— Christus Catholicam Ecclesiam uni soli in terris, Apostolorum Principi Pe­tro, Petríque Successori Rom. Ponti [...]ici, in Potesta­tis plenitudine tradidit gu­bernandam. Ita Bulla dicta in principio. That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Vniversal Church, with a plenitude of Power to govern it, to one only, that is to Peter the Prince of the Apostles, And His Successors. Here I consi­der,

1. That although it be certain, (from Scripture, and evident Testimonies of pure and primitive [Page 92] Antiquity) that Peter never had, nor Executed any such Monarchical Supremacy over the o­ther Apostles, and the whole Christian Church, as is now vainly pretended to; yet 'tis as cer­tain, that the Pope (and his Party) cry up, and magnifie St. Peter's Power, that he (as his Heir and Successor) may possess the same Power. For this they say, (and without any just proof, say it only) That it was our blessed Saviour's will, that Peter' s Successor should have Christus Petrum u­niversi fidelium generis Caput & Pastorem Con­stituit, cum illi Oves suas pascendas commendavit, ut qui ei Successisset▪ Ean­dem Plane totius Ecclesiae regendae Potestatem habere voluerit. Catechis. Trid. Part. 1. De. 9. Symboli Art. §. 13. p. 117. Paris. 1635. The Very same Power Peter had; and this because he was Cum in Petrì Ca­thedrâ sedeat, ut Petri Successor, Christique Vi­carius in terris, Vniver­sali Ecclesiae Praesidet. I­bid. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. p. 391. Christ's Vicar, (though every Bishop in the World, (as shall, God willing, appear anon) be Christ's Vicar as well, and as much as he) and sat in Peter' s Chair, as his lawful Successor.

2. But admit, ( dato non Concesso) which is abso­lutely untrue, That Peter had such a Suprema­cy and Monarchical Power (as they Erroneous­ly pretend to) yet it might be Personal, to him­self, and for his Life only, (as his Apostolical power was; as to that part of it, which was properly Apostolical) and not Hereditary, to be transferred to any Successor. So that the Hinge of the Controversie will be here, and our Adversaries concern'd to prove two Things. 1. That Peter's Power (be what it will) was not Personal, but Hereditary, and to be Trans­mitted to his Successor. 2. And that the Pope and Bishop of Rome was his Legal Successor. For if they do not, upon just Grounds, make both these good, good night to their pretended Supremacy.

[Page 93] For the First; That the greatest Power St. Pe­ter and the Apostles had, was Extraordinary and Personal, not to be Transmitted to any Successor (what Power they did transmit, I shall anon shew) will be Evident, in these Particulars.

1. Peter and the Apostles, had Vocationem à Christo 1 Immediatam. Our blessed Matth. 10. 1. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. Saviour call'd them all (except Matthias) Immediately; as is evident from the Text. And, sure I am, that the Pope cannot pretend to such an Immediate Call.

2. The Apostles (every one as well as Peter) had a Power given them to do Miracles, to Cast out Ibid. Matth. 10. 1. Devils, and heal all manner of Diseases, and Sicknesses. Nor can Peter's Successor (who­ever he be) pretend to this.

3. The Jurisdiction, which was by our blessed Saviour given to every Apostle, (to James and John, and Paul as well as Peter) was Universal; the whole World was their Diocese. Not that every one could possibly be in every place, but where ever any of them came, they had Au­thority to Preach, Administer the Sacraments, Constitute and Govern Churches. So Paul did at It does not appear in Scripture, that Peter ever was at Antioch, save once. Gal. 2. 11. But Paul was many times, and long there, and con­stituted that Church. See Act. 11. 26. Act. 14. 21. 28. Act. 15. 35. Act. 18. 22. 23. Antioch and Rome, as much, and Paul was there two whole years, Act. 28. 30. writ them a long and excellent Epistle; But 'tis certain, Peter ne­ver writ to them, nor can it appear from Scri­pture that he was ever two weeks, much less two years, at Rome. Where St. Paul is, by Origen, said to be (next Christ) Primus Ecclesia­rum Fundator. Origen Contra Celsum, lib. 1. pag. 49. Graeco-Lat. more than Peter; though they pretend that Pe­ter alone (and not Paul) was first Bishop of both those Places. That every Apostle (as well as Peter) had Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over the whole World, is in Scrip­ture Evident by the Commission our blessed Saviour gave them— Matth 28. 19. 20. Go and teach all Na­tions, [Page 94] baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you. And again, — Mark. 16. 15. 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 Matth. 10. 5. 6. 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 Euseb. 1. 3. Demon­strat. Evangelicae. p. 136. and he has our blessed Sa­viour's word for it. Matth. 24. 14. [...], 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) [Page 95] is expresly Vniversal; Preach to every Creature: That is, Feed All my sheep. This is a Truth so evident, that a Learned Franc. Victoria. Relect. Theol. Lugduni. 1587. Relect. 2. De Po­testate Ecclesiae Concl. 4. p. 85. where he tells us, Apostoli Omnes habue­runt Aequalem Potestatem cum Petro. Quod sic In­telligo; quod Quilibet A­postolorum habuit Potesta­tem Ecclesiasticam in Toto Orbe, & ad Omnes Actus ad quos Petrus habuit. Non tamen loquor de illis Acti­bus, qui spectant ad solum summum Pontificem, ut est Congregatio Generalis Con­cilij. And this he there proves; as to their Pow­er over the whole world; and to Acts; only (and he dared do no other­wise) he excepts some few, to which no Pope, for many Ages, pretend­ed. In the present Ro­man Breviary the Uni­versal Jurisdiction of Paul (as well as Peter) is acknowledg'd; Paul an Apostle, Praedicator veritatis per Vniversum Mundum. In Festo Ca­thedrae Petri Antiochiae. Febr. 22. 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 A Learned Papist, Doctor of the Sorbon (newly come to my hand) has saved me the labour, and ex professo, and data opera proved, that all the Eight first General Councils were call'd solely by the Emperors: The Popes did indeed (as he evidently proves) sometimes Peti­tion the Emperors, to call a Council at such a time or place; but they were always both call'd and confirm'd by the Emperors. Vid. Edm. Richer. D. Sorb. in Hist. de Conc. General. Colon. 1680. Good. In the mean time, I think 'tis 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 Act. 15. 2. 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 [Page 96] 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 Act. 15. 7. 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 'tis Evident Act. 15. 19. 20. 21. in the Text, That James the Less, Son of Alphaeus, and Bishop of Jerusalem, gave the Definitive Sentence, which both Peter and the whole Act. 15. 22. Council acqui­esc'd in. 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch, to signifie what he, and the Council had done, but the Ibidem. 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, Act. 15. 23. Vide dictum Edmundum Ri­cherium D. Sorbonicum, in Hist. Conc. Generali­um, lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 5. pag. 401. Edit. Colon. 1680. Ubi ex Card. Alliaceno, & Concilio hoc Apostolico Act. 15. demonstrat, Petrum Pri­matum (qualem Jesuitae vellent) non habuisse, sed Primatum illum Monar­chicum ab Hildebrando, seu Gregorio. 7. retro­ductum. Ibid. §. 2. 5. The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren send Greet­ing. 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name, as made or Act. 16. 4. confirm'd by him, more than any other Apo­stle. 8. Nay, the Apostles send Peter on a Act. 8. 14.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 [Page 97] the Apostles times and Presence, they question and Act. 11. 2. 3. 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, Petrus Apostolorum Primus, rationem reddere Ecclesiae Cogitur, nec in­digne fert, quia non Do­minum sed Ministrum Ec­clesiae se agere sciebat. Ferus in Act. 11. 2. 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 Impijautem Ponti­fices Nunc nec ab Ecclesiâ argui, aut in Ordinem co­gi volunt, quasi sint Do­mini non Ministri. I­bidem. 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, Si Papa innumera­biles populos sccum ducit, primo mancipio Gehennae, &c. Hujus Culpas redar­guere praesumat mortalium nullus: quia Cunctos ipse judicaturus, à nemine est Judicandus; nisi sit à si­de deviss. Can. si Papa. 6. Dist. 40. 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 Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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, 2. Cor. 11. 5. & 12. vers. 11. That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles; not to Peter, James, or John, whom Gal. 2. 9. else­where he reckons the chiefest. I know they say, [Page 98] That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office, but Inferior to Peter, as he was Locus hic non de­rogat praerogativae Petri, qui totius Ecclesiae rector & Pastor Constitutus, eti­am ipsis Apostolis Major & Superior fuit. Estius in 2. Cor. 12. 11. 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, 'tis certain, 1. That every Apostle (as well as Peter) had an Vniversal supream Qui Apostolus est, Sammam habet in Omnem Ecclesiam Potestatem, Bel­larmin. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 12. in Respons. 3. & Object. 2. 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 Successio ex Christi Instituto, & Jure Divino est, quia ipse Christus Insti­tuit in Petro Pontificatum, infinem Mundi duraturum, ac ideo quicunque Petro succedit, à Christo accipit Pontificatum. Bellarmin. dicto lib. & cap. §. ut au­tem. 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 Romanum Pontifi­cem succedere Petro, non habetur expresse in Scrip­turis, (no, nor Implicitè neither) tamen succedere aliquem Petro, deducitur evidentèr ex Scripturis, illum autem esse Romanum Pontificem, habetur ex tra­ditione Apostolica. Bellar­min. dicto lib. & cap. §. Observandum Tertio. 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, [Page 99] 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 Vid. Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra. de Major. & Obedientiâ. & Cap. Per venerabilem. 13. Extra. Qui filij sunt legit. & Cap. Ad Apostolicae. 2. De Sent. & re judicatâ, in. 6. & Cap. pro Hu­man. 1. De Homicidio, in. 6. 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 Vid. Tho. Cam­pegium Episc. Feltren­sem, de Potestate Rom. Pont. Capp. 13. 14. & Bellarminum de Roman. Pontisice, lib. 2. c. 12. &c. 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 [...], &c Non id Petro uni Succes­sorbusque suis reservatum. Pet. Possinus Jesuita, Ca­tena Graec. Patrum in Matth. Tom. 1. p. 232. 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 Joh. 20. 22. 23. Savionr told them, whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. So in the Epistle of Pope Vid. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdo­tij & Imperij. Tom. 2. 1. 5. c. 10. §. 2. p. 35. & Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 945. Col. 2. The words are these; Vnde Sanctis­simus & Beatissimus Papa, Caput Vniversalis Eccle­siae, &c. Leo to the Bishops of France, and of his Legat Pas­chasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus, [Page 100] 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 Absent à Contex­tu Graeco, verba illa, Ca­put Vniversalis, &c. loco dicto, in margine. 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 Vide Indicem Li­brorum Prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Edi­tum, Romae, Ann. 1664. verbo, De Concordia Sa­cerdotij, &c. p. 29. & p. 352. ubi extat Decretum Congrationis Jndicis, in quo damnatur hic Petri de Marca Liber., 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 'tis impossible it should by any just and lawful [Page 101] 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,— Non fuisset Christus Diligens Pater-familias, si non dimisisset in Terrâ aliquem qui Vice suâ possit subvenire necessitatibus Ec­clesiae, &c. De Potestat. Rom. Pontif. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 2. 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— Christus Ecclesiae Defuissct, nec de Necessa­riis prospexisset, Nisi Mo­narcham aliquem & Judi­cem Constituisset, &c. Vide Albert. Pighium Con­trovers. 3. fol. 70. 71. 76. 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 Christus dum fuit in Mundo, de jure natura­li, in Imperatorem & Quos­cunque Alios Deposnionis Sementias ferre potuisset, & Damnationis—& Eadem Ratione & Vica­rius ejus potest. Nam non videretur Dominus Dis­cretus fuisse, nisi unicum post se Talem Vicarium re­liquisset. Fuit autem iste Vicarius Petrus: & idem dicendum est de Successo­ribus Petri. Ita Petrus Bertrandus in Addit. ad Glossas ad Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Com­mun. 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 Vide Bullam Greg. 13. dat. Rom. 1. Julij, Ann. 1580. praefixam. Corp. Juris Can. Paris. 1612. & 1618. 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 [Page 102] 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 Sic Omnes Aposto­licae Sodis Sanctiones acci­piendae sunt, tanquam Ipsius divini Petri voce firmatae sint. Can. sic Omnes. 2. Dist. 19. And this the Gloss there indeavours to prove, from a spuri­ous and ridiculous, as well as impious Canon. Can. Non Nos. 1. Dist. 40. Canonists and The Jesuits in their Thesis proposed in the Claromont Coll. 12. Decemb. Ann. 1661. Im­pudently and Impiously say, Christus Ecclesiae re­gimen primum Petro, dein Successoribus Commisit, & Eandem quam habebat Ip­se, Infallibilitatem, Conces­sit, quoties ex Cathedrâ lo­queretur. And then. Thes. 20. tells us—Datur Infallibilis Controversia­rum Judex, etiam Extra Concilium Generale, Tum in Quaestio [...]ibus Juris, tum facti. 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 'tis 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 [Page 103] 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, Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast in Fortunatiano. Liberius, Vid. Hist. Haeresis Monothlitarum, per Fran. de Combesis Domi­nicanum. Paris. 1648. p. 65. &c. 121. &c. ubi contra Pighium, Baroni­um, &c. probat eviden­tèr Honorium Synodo. 6. damnatum. Honorius, Vid. D. Rlch. Cra­kanthorp, in Vigilio dormitante. 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 Let any man read those two Constitutions before nam'd. 1. That of Innocent. 3. Cap. Soli­citae. 6. Extra de Major. & Obedient. &, 2. That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. eodem Titu­lo. Extravag. Commun. and if he have eyes, and will Impartially use them, he will find what I say, true. Or he may (with the same success) read the Bulls and Dam­nations of the Emperor Hen. 4. by Greg. 7. in Bull. Rom. 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. 50. 51. And of Freder. 2. Ibid. p. 94. 95. by Innoc. 4. And the Ex­communications of the same Emperor, by Greg. 9. Ann. 1239. Ibid. in di­cto Bullario. Tom. 1. p. 89. 90. Constitutions; and in them how ridiculously they reason, and prophane (rather than expound) Scripture; will have a­bundant reason to believe, that those Popes were so far from Infallibility, that their own Writings Convince them guilty of Gross Igno­rance and Folly.

5. Lastly, All the Apostles were Fundamenta Ec­clesiae, Domus Dei, Foundations of the Church, or House of God, (as has before been evidently proved from Scripture) and this was in all the Apostles Extraordinary, and a Personal Aposto­lical Priviledge, to which, (as it was in the A­postles) none of their Successors (no not the Pope,) ever did, or (with any reason) could pretend. And as this Apostolical Priviledge, so the other four before mention'd (1. Imme­diate Vocation. 2. Power to work Miracles. 3. V­niversality of Jurisdiction. 4. Infallibility in all things they preach'd or writ.) I say, all these Pri­viledges, were Extraordinary and Personal to [Page 104] 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— Matth. 20. 26. 27. Whosoever will be great among you (though Peter be the man) let him be their Minister; and whosoever will be [...], Primus seu Princeps, (plus est quam esse Magnum) a­liis Omnibus Major (yet this the Pope would have). Luc. Burgensis. in Matth. 20. 27. chief, let him be your Servant. And again,— Matth. 23. 8. 9. 10. 11. Be not ye call'd Masters, for one is your Master, e­ven Christ (not Peter) and ye are Brethren; but [Page 105] 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 Gal. 1. 1. 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 Joh. 1. 40, 41, &c.). 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 [Page 106] 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 Matth. 23. 8. Omnes autem vos fratres estis. On which words, Luc. Bru­gensis saith thus—Quia fratres sumus, Ne­minem in alios Magisterio fungi Concedit—Fra­tres non Magistri Alii in Alios—estis Condis­cipuli, nemo in alium pro­prie agere potest Magi­strum. Nullus aliorum Ma­gisterium mereatur, se ha­bere vos Omnes merito de­beatis Condiscipulos. Chri­stus Solus Omnium Magi­ster agnoscendus. Ita L. Brugensis Commentar. in. 4. Evang. ad. 23. Math. 8. p. 361. vid. Hieronym. in Gal. 2. 1. ubi dicit Pe­trum, Paulum, & reli­quos Apostolos fuisse ae­quales. 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, Sed quia Ecclesia regenda est juxta unita­tem, necessarium fuit, In­stitui ab Apostolis modum quendam Communionis in­ter Episcopos, secundum Ex­emplum, A Christo datum in Institutione Collegij A­postolici; quod Vniversum Ecclesiae Corpus repraesenta­bat: Ideoque praescribenda ab iis fuit forma regiminis, Aristocratici nimirum, it a ut unus Praesideret. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij & Imperij, lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 58. Col. 1. 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, [Page 107] 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 Conc. Chalcedon. Can. 28. Conc. Constant. 1. Can. 5. apud P. Crabb. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 411. 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 But it is not only Pet, de Marca, but even the Popish General Councils of Pisa, Con­stance, and Basil, and the Gallican Church and Sor­bon, and the Ancient Church for a thousand years after our blessed Saviour, which main­tain'd the same Do­ctrine Marca did; as is evidently proved by a Learned Sorbon Doctor, Edm. Rechier. In Hist. Conc. General. l. 1. Edit. Colon. Ann. 1680. The design of the whole Book is against the Popes Mo­narchical Supremacy and Infallibility. Vide di­cti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. &c. 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) 'tis 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 [Page 108] Apostles, and the whole Church, (as is vainly pretended) I will yield the Cause. But if he had no such Power, 'tis 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 only for his life; that it was not to have an end and period with his Person. For if it was, then his Successor (whoever he be) can have no pretence to it. For 'tis impossible, that any Successor, can have any legal or just Claim to that Power, which vanish'd and ceas'd to be, with his Predecessor, who possess'd it on­ly for his life.

3. Admit both these to be true, (which yet are equally and evidently false) that Peter had such a Power, and that it was not Personal, but to be transmitted to his Successor, seeing such trans­mission must either be done by our blessed Sa­viour immediately, or (by Power deriv'd from him) by Peter. Let our Adversaries make it appear, that either our blessed Saviour himself, or Peter (by Power deriv'd from him) did actu­ally transmit that Power to any Successor, and I submit.

4. Lastly, Suppose all these to be (what not one of them is) true; yet unless it do appear, that the Bishop of Rome (and not the Bishop of Antioch, (where they say Peter was Bishop first) was [Page 109] that Successor of St. Peter, to whom such Su­premacy was transmitted; he can have no pre­tence to it. For in this Case, Idem est non esse & non apparere. Let our Adversaries then make it appear, that either our blessed Saviour imme­diately by himself, or Peter (by Authority from him) did I know that some of them (eminent for Learning and Dignity in their Church) say; That our blessed Saviour did give Peter power to transfer his great Au­thority to his Successor, and only to him, not to any of the other Apostles; But this they say only, without any pretence of proof. And I commend their Prudence, not to attempt Impos­sibilities. Johan. Franciscus Bordinus Archbishop of Avignion, has published his Opinion, in these words— Christus Vniversale Totius Ecclesiae Caput Petrum Constituit, qui suas Vices in Terris ageret. Quo quidem in Munere, & si dum viveret, Aequales (mark that) habuit caeteros Coapostolos, Nulli tamen Eorum, quod à Domino accipissent, jus per Successionem in alios transferendi facult as fuit. Soli Petro Id Promissum, Soli Petro Id Traditum, ut Petra esset, & post Christum Ecclesiae funda­mentum. Ita Johan. Fran. Bordinus Archiepiscopus Avenionensis, in Serie & Gestis Roman. Pontif. ad Clement. Papam. 8. ad Annum Christ. 34. Tiberij. 18. transmit the Supremacy to the Pope, and we shall be satisfy'd; and thankful for the Discovery. And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before.

2. The thing next to be enquired after is, 2. Whe­ther, and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor. Our Adversaries say, (and vainly say it only) that Peter was Supream Head (after our blessed Saviour's Ascension) and Monarch of the Church; and from him, ( Jure Suc­cessionis) the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy; and that by the Institution and Petrus Romae Sedem suam, Jubente Domino, Collocavit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. Com­mand of our blessed Saviour, and so not by Humane, but Probatur, Roman. Pontificem Petro Succedere, in Pontificatu Ecclesiae V­niversae Ex Divino Jure, & Ratione Successionis, Bellarmin. Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Primum ergo. Papa in Petri Cathedrâ Sedet, summum in eo dignitatis gradum, & Jurisdictionis amplitudinem, non Humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitus datum agnoscit: est Pater Vnixersalis Ecclesiae Petri Successor, & Christi Vicarius, &c. Catechism. Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. Divine Right. This is a Position of great­est Consequence, and will require good proof. [Page 110] Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick, unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See. Linus, Clemens or Cletus cannot (with any Truth or Sense) be said to succeed Peter, unless it appear first, that he preceeded them. Our Ad­versaries (I confess) do constantly (with great noise and confidence) affirm, That Peter did pre­ceed in the Bishoprick of Rome; but sure I am, that hitherto, they have not brought any, so much as probable (much less cogent and concluding) Rea­son to prove it: nor do I think it possible they should bring (what they neither have, nor can have) any true and concluding proof, to prove (what this is) an erroneous and false Position. And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum, I shall offer to the Impartial Reader, these Conside­rations.

1. When they Bellarm. Locis proxime citatis, (ut & alij passim). And Pope Pius. 5. in this his Impi­ous Bull. §. 1. Christus Ec­clesiam Catholicam uni soli Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Po­testatis Plenitudine Tra­didit Gubernandam. say, That Peter fix'd his Epis­copal Chair at Rome, Jubente Domino: Let them shew that Nullum Christi, ea dere, Decretum Extat. So A Lapide Confesses; in Apoc. 17. vers. 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. Command, and there will be an end of the Controversie; we will obey our bles­sed Saviour's Command, and the Pope too. But this they have neither done, nor can: It being impossible, they should shew that to be, which never was, nor ever had any being.

2. That ever Peter was at Rome, (much less that he was Bishop there, for Five and twenty years (as is vainly pretended) cannot be made appear out of Scripture, or any Apostolical or Authentick Record; and therefore that he was there at all, (where he might be, as he was in [Page 111] many other good Cities, and not Bishop of a­ny of them) must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies, (I say, Testimonies cer­tainly fallible, if not absolutely false; which many Learned men have, and do believe). Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibi­lity, depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome, and the grounds we have to assure us, that he ever was there, are fallible and dubious; and seeing it is irrational (if not impossible) that a­ny considering Person, should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion, inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses. Hence it evidently follows, That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is, and (till they find better, and more necessary premis­ses) must be fallible and dubious. And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith, in their new Roman Creed; That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ, and Romano Pontifici, Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis, Successori, ac Christi Vicario, veram O­bedientiam spondeo ae ju­ro. Vid. Bullam Pii. 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei, in Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. p. 452. Edit. Antv. 1633. Peter' s Successor; which Article (with the rest in that Creed) they promise, Hanc Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest, quam in Praesenti profiteor, & teneo, eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Con­stantissime retinere, &c. Spondeo, Voveo, Juro. I­bidem. swear and vow, to believe and profess most Constantly, to their last breath. With what Conscience their Church can require, or they take such an Oath, Most Constantly and firmly to believe, to their last breath, such things, for the belief of which, they have no grounds (if any) save only fallible and very dubious, Ipsi viderint.

3. I know, that the Assertors of the Papal Mo­narchy (according to their Interest) are very desirous to prove out of Scripture, that Peter [Page 112] was at Rome; and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle— 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you: And by Babylon, they say, the Apostle meant Rome: And for this, they cite Papias in Primam Petri E­pistolam Romae Scriptam ( [...]) aiunt, quam Pe­trus, [...] appellat. Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio. Eusebius, That by Babylon, Rome is figuratively to be understood. So that (if this be true) Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon; that is, at Rome, and so must be at Rome when he writ it: And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, and those who follow him. Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this, (or any thing else) will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius; who tells us, 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition; Curiose sciscitabar ( said Papias) à Seniori­bus, quid Petrus, quid Ja­cobus, dicere soli [...]ì essent. Néque ex Bibliorum Le­ctione, tantam me utilita­tem capere posse Existi­mabam, quantam ex ho­minum vivâ voce. Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. p. 111. inquiring (of the Elders who had heard the Apostles) what Peter, or James, or John, &c. had said: thinking he g [...]t [...]less benefit by reading Scriptures, then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them. 2. That he had by such [...] Ex Traditione non scriptâ habuit novas quas­dam Servatoris parabolas & praedicationes, aliáque Fabulis propiora; inter quae Mille Annorum spa­tium post resurrectionem, fore dicit. Euseb. ibid. p. 112. Tradition, strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour, and other things very Fabulous: Such as the Heresie of the Mille­naries; which he believed and propagated. That he thus err'd, by Ita opinatus vide­tur Papias, ex male In­tellectis Apostolorum nar­rationibus. Fuit enim Me­diocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus. Euseb. ibidem. Lit. c. Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine: For (as Eusebius goes on) he was a man of very little understanding. 4. And yet (as the same Author says) he was the occasion that, Plerisque tamen post Ipsum Ecclesiasticis Scri­ptoribus, Ejusdem Erroris occasionem praebuit, homi­nis vetustate, Sententiam suam tuentibus. Ibidem D. Ita etiam Nicepho­rus Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 252. D. most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who follow­ed him (Reverencing his Antiquity) err'd with him.

[Page 113] I know, Object. that in Eusebius (both in the worst E­dition of him, by Colon. Allobr. 1612. Christopherson, (sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester) and the best by Paris. 1659. Hen. Valesius) we have a high Commendation of Pa­pias; Papias eadem aetate Celebris fuit; Vir Imprimis disertus, & eruditus, ac Scripturarum peritus. Eu­seb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 36. E­dit. Valesij: Sed in Edit. Christopherson. Cap. 35. Grae. 30. Latinae Versio­nis. At the same time (says Eusebius, as Vale­sius renders him) Papias was famous; a man very Eloquent and Learned, and well skill'd in Scripture. But Christopherson (his other Translator) goes high­er, (as usually he does when it makes for the Ca­tholick Cause) and in his Translation says more in Commendation of Papias, then is in the Text: For he tells us, That Papias (besides his knowledge of Scripture) was a man Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus. Ibidem. certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true, then that Character I have given him before, is not so; and then his Antiquity (which was Papias was a friend and familiar of St. Poly­carpe. Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. and Polycarpe suffered Martyrdom Anno Christ. 167. Baro­nius Annotat. ad Marty­rolog. Romanum, ad di­em Jan. 26. p. 81. Col. 1. great) and his great Learning (in all Arts and Sci­ences, as well as Scripture) consider'd; his Testi­mony, that Babylon, whence St. Peter writ, was Rome, will be more valid, and of greater Autho­rity.

In Answer to this; Answer. I say, 1. That all this Com­mendation of Papias before mention'd, is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius, that 'tis a plain Forgery. Eusebius (as to this passage) is evidently corrupted; and this Commendation of Papias (by whose Ignorance or Knavery, I know not) shuffled into the Text, long after Euse­bius his death. For, 2. Ruffinus (who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago) in the place above quoted, says only thus— About this time flourished Polycarpe [Page 114] Bishop of Smyrna, and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis. So the Printed Edition of Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnae­orum Episcopus, & Papias Similiter Apud Hierapo­lim Sacerdotium gerens. Ruffin. l. 3. c. 35. in Excu­so Rhenarci. Basil. 1528. Ruffinus by B. Rhe­nanus; and a very Ancient and Compleat MS. of Ruffinus (in my Keeping and Possession) exactly In Cod. MS. Ruffi­ni, est. Lib. 3. cap. 32.agrees with it; and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias, which is now ex­tant in Eusebius: And therefore we may Con­clude, that Anciently it was not there, but the Text of Eusebius (by fraud or folly) is since Cor­rupted: For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him, there had been no reason he should have left it out. 3. And which is yet more con­siderable, Valesius (a very Learned Roman Catho­lick) who last published Eusebius, Ingenuously Confesses, that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius, which he made use of in his Edition, not any one of them Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codi­cibus. Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij. c. 36. p. 55. had that Commendation of Pa­pias; and therefore he doubts not, but these words were Non dubito, quin hae [...] verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt, praeter Eusebij mentem & Sementiam. Valesius Ibi­dem. added by some Ignorant Scholiast, contrary to the Judgment and Sense of Eusebius. For (says Quomodo fieri po­test ut Eusebius Papiam hic appellet virum doctissimum, & scripturarum peritissi­mum, cum in fine Libri affirmat diserte, Papiam Mediocri Ingenio praedi­tum, Planéque Rudem ac Simplicem. Valesius Ibi­dem. he) how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man, and Most Skill'd in Scripture, who in the same Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39. Book says, he was A Rule and Simple Person, of Very Little Wit or Judgment. And his Ignorance especially appears (as in other things) in that

1. He says that Philip, whose Daughters were Pro­phetesses, was Philip the Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39. p. 112. Valesij Edit. vide Nicephor. lib. 3. c. 20. Apostle; when the Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor. Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C.Text, (had he read or remembred it) ex­presly says, That it was Philip the Deacon.

[Page 115] 2. Papias said, (and in his Writings published his Opinion) That hearing Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. Hieronym. de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor. l. 3. c. 20. Oral Traditions, was more profitable, then reading Scriptures). That is, to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons (and that in Matters of Religi­on) was more profitable, then to read the Sa­cred Oracles of God, penn'd by Divinely In­spired Infallible Persons. St. Joh. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25. John tells us, he had writ so many and such things, as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation, yet left out thousands of things, which he thought not necessary. But Papias (with great Ignorance and Impiety) prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour, which the Apostles had omitted, as not neces­sary, nor so useful as those things they had writ. And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John (his Infallible Amanuensis) calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful, which they had omitted as not useful at all. And this his Ignorance and want of Judgment further appears,

3. Because Eusebius tells us, That he had (amongst his Traditions) [...], &c. Novas quasdam Servato­ris parabolas ac praedica­tiones. strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour, and other things more Fabulous; and amongst them his Millena­ry Heresie, of which he was Father, and (to the Infecting many others) did propagate it: And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ig­norance and Misunderstanding of Scripture; as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us. And yet this simple Person, and Arch-Heretick, is the prin­cipal [Page 116] and prime Witness Rome has, to prove that Babylon (in the Epistle of Peter) signifies Rome, and that Peter was there. For other place in Scripture, they have none, and only Papias (and his Followers) for that. By the Premisses, I think it may appear to Impartial Persons, That seeing Papias preferr'd Tradition (or some mens talk before the Scriptures) that he was a man of very weak understanding, and err'd by misunderstanding Scripture, that he writ Fables rather than History, and maintain'd the Millenary Opinion, which Rome now calls Heresie: I say these things Consider'd, his Au­thority and Credit is, (if any at all) very little; and yet 'tis all our Adversaries have (his Fol­lowers Testimonies being derived from, and depending upon his) to prove out of Scripture, that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome, or ever was there. This is a Truth so manifest, that not only Scaliger in Anno­tat. in Joh. 18. 31. Petrus Romae nunquam fuit: sed praedicabat [...], Cujus Metropolis e­rat Babylon, ex quâ scri­bit Epistolam suam. Vid. Johan. Rainoldum con­tra Hartum, &c. Protestants, but most Learned Roman Tametsi Veteres Ex­istimaverint Petrum voca­bulo Babylonis signisicasse Vrbem Romam, probabilis est Scaligeri Conjectura; qui ex Ipsa Babylone scrip­tam à Petro putat Episto­lam hanc ad Judaeos di­spersos, &c. Petrus de Marca▪ Archiepiscopus Parisiensis. De Concor­dia Sacerd. & Imperij. l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59. Tom. 2. Catholicks, say and prove; that Peter writ that Epistle, not at Rome, but Babylon in Chal­dea. And further; that he did not write it at Rome, will be evident from Scripture, and what their own most Learned Author Confes­ses. For, 1. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Chri­sti 45. §. 16. 17. Baronius tells us, It was writ, Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable, both he, Petavius, and others, generally say; That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius; which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholick evidently Haec Sententia re­felli videtur ex Actis Apo­stolorum, ex quibus con­stat Petrum, in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse, usque ad ultimum Annum A­grippae, &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34.Confutes from Scripture, and good Au­thorities; [Page 117] and plainly shews, that Peter was al­ways in Judea or Syria, till the death of Herod Agrippa, which was in the fourth year of Clau­dius, and the Six and fortieth year of our bles­sed Saviour. And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome, in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Savi­our, who never came thither till the year Forty six, unless they will say (and they do say things as impossible) that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there. 4. Nay, 'tis certain from what Luke says in the Act. 15. &c. Acts of the Apo­stles, that Peter continued in Judaea till the Council met at Jerusalem about the Question concerning Circumcision, and the Ceremonial Law. Sure it is, that he was present at that Council; which was Anno Christi 51. says Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. Baronius, Bellarmine, and others; the Learned In Chronico Alex­andrino Concilium Hiero­solymitanum refertur Anno Claudij. 6. (Christi. 48.) melius dixisset. 7 ^•. sic e­nim cuncta egregié conve­niunt, &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. Valesius thinks (and gives his reason for it, (more probable to me, then any brought for the Contrary Opinions) that the Council was held, Anno Claudij. 7. and Christi. 49. take which Computation you please, if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome, Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there, several years before he came thi­ther. 5. Nay, 'tis further Evident, (let that Council be when they will) that Peter was not at Rome, in the year. 51. which Baronius men­tions, but at Jerusalem. For St. Gal. 1. 18. Paul tells us, that three years after his Conversion, (which was about the year. 37.) he went to Je­rusalem to see Peter, and found him there: And [Page 118] then Gal. 2. 1. 8. 9. fourteen years after, (which was a­bout the year. 51.) he went to Jerusalem again, and then found Peter there. According to our Adversaries Computation, in the year. 51. Pe­ter had sate Bishop in Rome about They say, he sate at Rome. 25. years, and that he was martyr'd Neronis. 13. or Anno Christi. 68. so that those 25. years must begin Anno Christi. 43. And then Anno Christi. 51. he had sate at Rome eight years. 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, 'Tis Evident, St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatick 1 Pet. 1. 1. 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. 'Tis true, St. John above The First Epistle of Peter was writ Anno Christi. 45. So Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 45. §. 16. And the same Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christ. 97. §. 1. tells us, that the Re­velation of St. John was writ Anno Christi 97. that is, 52. years after. Fifty years after, call [...] 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 Predict [...] ­ons, but the plain Duties, and Promises of th [...] Gospel, should use such Types or Figures, ha [...] 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.

[Page 119] 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, Petrus & Paulus fundantes Ecclesiam Ro­manam, Lino Episcopatum tradiderunt. Succedit ei A­nacletus, post eum Tertio Loco ab Apostolis Clemens. Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 3. 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 [...] &c. Post Pauli Petríque Martyrium, Primus Eccle­siae Romanae. Episcopatum suscepit Linus. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 2. vide Niceph. l. 3. cap. etiam. 2. Martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. And again, speaking of the Bishops of Rome, he says, That [...], Primus fuit Linus, secun­dus Anencletus. Euseb. Ibid. l. 3. c. 21. Linus was the first, and Anencletus (or Anacletus, as he is usually call'd) the second. And though Eusebius say, That Li­nus was Euseb. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 4. [...]. 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 [Page 120] Clemens Clemens, [...]. Tertius à Paulo & Petro Romae E­piscopus. Euseb. loco di­cto. cap. 21. vide Epi­phanium adversus Haere­ses. lib. 1. Haeres. 27. Carpocratianorum §. 6. pag. 107. 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 Sciendum est Euse­bium Apostolos Inordine Episcoporum minime N [...] ­merare. Hen. Valesius in Annotat. ad Hist. Eccle­siasticam Euseb. l. 3. c. 21. & Notarum. pag. 50. Col. 2. B. acknowledg­es. By the way, let me observe; That Eusebi­us in two places here Lib. 3. Cap. 2. & Cap. 21. cited, puts Paul be­fore Peter: and not only Eusebius (a fallible Author) but St. Paul himself puts James before Gal. 2. 9. 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 Monarc [...] 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 'tis yet more Considerable, what St. Paul says Gal. 2. 1. 7. 8. 9. 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 [Page 121] to him, as his Gal. 2. 7. Charge and Cure, as the Gentiles to Paul. 2. It was our blessed Saviour who Vnus & idem mihi Evangelium praeputij, & Petro Circumcisionis credi­dit; me misit ad Gentes, Illum posuit in Judea. Hi­eronymus in Cap. 2. ad Galatas. d. 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 Vers. 8. several Provinces; Peter amongst the Jews, Paul amongst the Gentiles. 4. By a mutual Agreement, they Vers. 9. consent and pro­mise, That Peter (as he had As is evident in the Acts of the Apostles, and by his first Epistle writ (as Baronius says) Ann 45. Christi. Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 45. Num. 16. vid. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 1. where he says, that Peter preach'd the Go­spel long to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews, before he came to Rome; and Nicephorus says so too. before, so) for And 'tis certain, that after the year. 51. (of which we now speak) he took the Jews for his Charge and Cure: as is evident from his two E­pistles writ to them, Ann. 68. And the Con­fession of Baronius, An­nal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. Num. 3. 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 Gal. 2. 7. [...], &c. Petro Concreditum est Evangelium praeputij. 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 [Page 122] 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 Quod spectat ad Ec­clesiam Antiochenam, hoc Anno (Christi. 39.) In­stitutam à Petro, & sep­tem Annis ab eodem admi­nistratam, &c. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad An­num Christi. 39. §. 9. 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 Petrus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundans, in­de Romam adiit. Euseb. in Chron. ad Ann. Claud. 1. And they say he went to Rome, Our blessed Savi­our Commanding him so to do. Cum. 7. Annos An­tiochiae sedisset, Postea Ju­bente Christo Romam ve­mit. Longus A Coriola­no in summâ Concil. in Principio, in serie Pon­tificum. 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 [...], &c. Antio­chenae Ecclesiae Episcopus Primus erat Enodius. Idem in Chronico, ad Annum Claudij 2. Bishop of Antioch. 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Baronius Ibidem; ad Ann. 39. §. 9. Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bi­shop of Rome, and refers us, to what Eusebius All that Eusebius says, is only this— [...]. Ad Ann. Claudij. 1.says) ad Ann. 2. Claudij. The man (who [Page 123] 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 The words Baro­nius Cites, as being Eu­sebius his words Ad An­num. 2. Claudij, are in­deed (part of them) Ad Annum. 1. Claudij: but the rest (Peter's being five and twenty years Bi­shop of Rome) are nei­ther at that, nor any o­ther year of Claudius. 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 Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi, 34. §. 1. & 2. 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 Idem. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi. 69. §. 9. 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 [Page 124] 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 Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. &c. 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 Act. 11. 26. year at one time, con­stituted the Church there, confirmed them Act. 14. 22. afterwards in the Faith, and Act. 14. 23. ordain'd El­ders to govern them, staid there a Act. 14. 26. 28. long time; and Act. 15. 35. vid. Act. 18. 22. 23. 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 'tis 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; [Page 125] 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. I confess Baroni­us, and Hierom (whom he Cites, Commentari­orum in Epist. ad Gal. lib. 1. cap. 2.) tell us, That Peter was Bishop of Antioch; and are not well pleas'd that Luke left it out of his Histo­ry in the Acts of the A­postles. Nay they speak irreverently of him, and say, That he left that, and many other things out of his History, by a Li­berty or Licence he took to himself. Hanc cum tacuit Lucas, & alia Mul­ta Historiographi Licen­tia Praetermisit. Primum Episcopum Antiochae Pe­trum fuisse Accepimus (says Hierome there) quod Lucas penitùs Omisit. But Hierom (though an ex­cellent Person) had his Passions and Errors, and in that very place, indeavours to justifie Peter, as not to be blam'd, against the express words of St. Paul, Gal. 1. 11. Luke writ by the direction of the Holy Ghost, and if he writ not all that Hierome or Baronius would have him, yet they should not Censure him. Vide Baronium ad An­num Christi. 39. §. 8. 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. Onuph. Panvin. in Annotat ad Plat. in vitis Pont. ad vitam Petri. Onuphrius tells us; That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea, for Nine Ex his. 9. primis An­nis, us (que) ad Initium An. 2. Imper. Claudiij, Petrum Ju­daea nunquam exessisse, ex quo & Paulo, apertissimè Constat. Idem. ibidem. 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 [Page 126] Saviour. 50. And then Five and twenty years he [...] 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 Petrus Cruci Affix­ [...]est, novissimo Neronis Anno, Christi vero 69. I­bidem. died, Anno Christi. 69. And then (by his Calculation) Peter was Bi­shop of Rome Six years after his death. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 39. §. 8. 9. &c.

2. Baronius states the Question thus. Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi. 39. and was Bishop there Baronius Ibidem. §. 13. 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 Baronius Ibidem. §. 9. Ann. 39. 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 Anno Christ. 69. Capitone & Rufo Coss. Petrus & Paulus Mar­tyrium subiere. Annal. Tom. 1. an Annum. 69. §. 1. Neronis. 13. 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 Vide Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. in Petro Aposto; & Chronol. suae Part. 2. ad Annum 39. & 44. Bel­larmine maintains the same Opinion, not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius, but to Eusebius, Hierome, Epiphanius, &c. Vide Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 2. 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 Vide Jos. Scaligeri Animadvers. in Chrono­logica Eusebij; Amste­lod. 1658. pag. 189. corrup­ted in a Latin Version of it, about Four hun­dred [Page 127] 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 Rom. 1. 13. Gentiles. 2. That Paul (by our blessed Saviour's Act. 22. 21. Gal. 27. 8. Appointment) was the Apostle of the Gentiles, Peter was not, but of the Ibidem. Jews. 3. Paul was two whole Act. 28. 30. 31. years at Rome, Converted, and Established a Church there; but it cannot appear by Scripture, that Peter was ever there. 4. The Care ( [...]) 2. Cor. 11. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 17. of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul; no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter. 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good govern­ment of [...]. (hinc [...], & [...], Edictum, Constitu­tio.) So I ordain in all Churches. Versio vulg. frigidè—In Ecclesiis Omnibus doceo. 1. Cor. 7. 17. vide Act. 18. 2. All the Churches (without any Au­thority, Leave, or Commission from Peter) no such thing ever said of Peter, either in Scrip­ture, or primitive and pure Antiquity. 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans, Peter did no such thing. Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expresly told us, 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed, and Commission'd Peter to be the Apostle of the [Page 128] Gentiles (and such were the Romans), 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome, Convert­ing and Establishing a Church there. 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him. 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches. 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans, to Confirm them in that Faith he had preach'd amongst them: I say, had all these things been in Scripture expresly said of Peter, our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would (and with far more rea­son and probability might) have asserted Peter's Supremacy, and his Roman Episcopacy, and that the Pope was, and is his Successor. But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter, and every one of them expresly said of Paul, it is Evident, that there is far more reason and pro­bability (and that grounded upon express Scripture) that Paul was Bishop of Rome (and not Peter) and so the Pope might be his Suc­cessor. And yet our Adversaries I confess Bellar­mine would (out of Ire­naeus as he vainly thinks) perswade us, that both Peter and Paul were Bi­shops of Rome. Irenaeus (says he) lib. 3. cap. 3. fixit Catalogum Romano­rum Episcoporum, & Primo Loco ponit Petrum & Paulum. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 6. Irenaeus. reject Paul, and will have Peter their first Bishop (though some of them impiously say, our Series & Successio Rom. Pontif. sic est: Primus Jesus Christus. Longus à Coriol. summa Co [...] ­cil. in Prin. in Serie Rom. Pontif. we have the very same words in the Edition of Platina, De vi [...] Pont. Col. Agripp. 1626. But Platina (basely corrupted since his death) has no such thing in the Old Edition, 1485. But to make our blessed Saviour the first Bishop of Rome, is not only errone­ous, but impious. 1. He never was at Rome. 2. He was not sent, save to the lost Sheep of the Ho [...] of Israel, (not in Person sure, not to be a Bishop of any Gentile Church). 3. There was no Chri­stian Church at Rome while he liv'd of which he could be Bishop. 4. Our blessed Saviour remains a Priest for ever, and cannot have any Successor. Heb. 5. 6. And therefore Bellarm. justly denies ou [...] B. Saviour to have any Successor, because he is Pontifex aeternus. Bellar. de Script. Eccles. in T. Aquia▪ blessed Saviour was their first Bishop) That St. [Page 129] Paul was not Bishop of Rome (notwithstanding all the former things said of him, in Scripture) we believe and know, and willingly grant. But on the other side, to say, that Peter was Bi­shop of Rome, concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture, either in express terms, (as they are of Paul) or by Equivalence or any just Consequence; this we say, is very irratio­nal. For in things Moral or Historical (and of such we are now speaking) which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration, the highest Prudential Motives and Probabili­ties will, and ought to carry the Assent of all wise men: and therefore seeing it is deny'd (and justly too) that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome, though the Probabilities, grounded on Scrip­ture, that he was so, be far greater then Peter can pretend to; for our Adversaries to say, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, must be, and is, evi­dently irrational. If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent, certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so.

But when they would magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy, Object. (having no better Argu­ments) they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome, and his See, and of some Priviledges which they take (or mistake rather) to be peculiar to the Popes, such as▪ these. 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories [Page 130] and Canons, is called Apostolicus non nisi à Cardinalibus inthroni­zaendus, Gratian. Dist. 79. Part. 1. & ibidem. Can. 1. Alitèr inthronizatus non est Papa vel Apostolicus, sed Apostaticus &, Can. si Papa. 6. Dist. 4. In [...]em­mate. Damnatur Aposto­licus, suae & fraternae sa­lutis negligens. Apostolicus. 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica, and Cathedra Apostolica. 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.

I confess that these, and many such Bellarmine gives us a Catalogue of fifteen such Papal Titles; which are these—Papa, Pater Patrum, Christiano­rum Pontifex, summus Sa­cerdos, Princeps Sacerdo­tum, Vicarius Christi, Ca­put Ecclesiae, Fundamen­tum Ecclesiae, Pastor Ovi­lis Domini, Pater & Do­ctor Omnium Fidelium, Re­ctor Domus Dei, Custos vineae Dei, Sponsus Eccle­siae Dei, Apostolicae Sedis Praesul, Episcopus Vniver­salis, ex quibus Omnibus & Singulis Apertè Colligi­tur Ejus Primatus. De Romano Pont. lib. 2. cap. 31. Parti­culars have been urged, and (as pertinent) stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls, Answer. their Decre­tal Constitutions and Epistles, and generally by all their Party; especially the Clergy (Secular and Regular) whose great and principal Interest it is, to maintain the Papal Supremacy: for if that fail, they irrecoverably fall with it. In some Centuries past, while gross Ignorance and Tyran­ny, benighted and overaw'd this Western Part of the World, such Arguments did their Business; For few could, and (the danger being very great) few, or none, durst Answer them. But after Luther arose, and Learning reviv'd, all knowing and im­partial Persons did see and know, that all the Ar­guments they did (or could) bring from such To­picks, were not only Inconsequent, but indeed impertinent and ridiculous. That this may not be gratis dictum, I shall indeavour to make it Ap­pear by plain Instances, (and I hope Effect it) that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges do, or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy, and Papal Monarchy, they now so earnestly con­tend for; And here

1. It is to be observed, that the word Apostolicus, which (for some Ages last past) the Pope has Assumed, and his Flatterers given him, as pe­culiar [Page 131] to himself, was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops. So Cum Episcopus Ci­vitatis fuerit demortuus, Eligitur alius, & veniunt ad Apostolicum cum Ele­cto, ut cis Consecret Episco­pum. Alcuinus de Divinis Officiis. Cap. 36. Alcuinus Flaccus tells us, That when a Bishop was Elected, they sent him, ad Apostolicum, that he might Consecrate him. The Learned Archbishop Petrus de Marca de Concordiâ Sacerdotij & Imperij. Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 67. of Paris, tells me this; and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century, in the time of Gregorius Turonensis, who was made Bishop a­bout the Year. 572. but afterwards, That Title was Sequens aetas absti­nuit—& deinceps Aposto­lici Titulus Soli Summo Pontifici attributus est ab Authoribus. Idem Ibi­dem. appropriated to the Pope. Now I desire to know of our Adversaries, how The Title, being Appropriated to the Pope, does make more for his Supremacy, then it did for the Archbishops, when it was common to them all?

2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica, and Cathedra Apostolica, we grant. Because we are sure St. Paul (though not as Bishop) sate there. But that Peter ever was there, neither we nor our Adversaries are, or can be sure. But it is, and (by our Adversaries) must be granted too; That Jerusalem, Antioch, and other The Archbishop of Paris next before ci­ted, amonst the Aposto­lical Churches (besides those I have named) rec­kons Alexandria, Ephesus, Ancyra, Corinth, Thessalo­nica; and he might have added Philippi, &c. (De Concordiâ Sacred. & Im­perij, lib. 7. cap. 4. § 7. Tom. 2. p. 224.) for Ter­tullian adds it, in the Place next cited. Churches (besides Rome) were Sedes Apostolicae, and Ecclesiae Apostolicae, and eo Nomine, were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church. But the Bishops of none of them then did, or could pretend to any Supremacy, much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy: And why Rome should more then they, when our Ad­versaries can, and will give (which as yet they never did) any Just and Cogent Reason, I shall [Page 132] submit. Age jam qui voles Curiositatem melius exer­cere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre Ecclesias Aposto­licas, apud quas Ipsae ad­huc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis Praesidentur; a­pud quas Ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, & reprae­sentantes faciem uniuscu­jusque. Proxima est Tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum: Si non longe [...]s à Macedo­niâ, habes Philippos, aut Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Afiam tendere, habes Ephesum: si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam. &c. Tertullian. de Praescript. cap. 36. pag. 338. Edit. Pamelij, 1662. Tertullian also reckons the Apo­stolical Churches, such as Corinth, Ephesus, Thes­salonica, Philippi, Rome, &c. and tells us, That Cathedrae Apostolorum, the Chairs of the Apostoles were then in those Apostolical Churches; That Bi­shops presided in them; that if they had great Cu­riosity and Care of their Salvation, they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Chur­ches. He sends them not all to Rome, and Peter's Chair there: But (saith he) if thou art near Ma­cedonia, thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to; If in Asia, Ephesus; If in Achaia, Co­rinth; If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome to Address to. He knew no Supremacy or Infal­libility annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome, more then to Paul's at Corinth, or Philippi. He di­rects them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them, and Judged that sufficient, without going to Rome. The Bishop of Rome in those days, pretended to no more Su­premacy or Infallibility in the Apostolical Church and Chair at Rome, then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth, in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities. If Sedes Aposto­lica, and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy; then either all such Churches must be Supream, (which is impossible) or none at all, which is certainly true.

3. But they say; The Bishop of Rome is Peter' s Successor, and on this they principally and general­ly ground his Supremacy; as derived to him, Ecclesiae Rom. spe­cialius in Petro, Coeli Terraeque retine [...] habenas. Gratian. Can. Si Papa. 6. Dist. 40. Jure [Page 133] [...]cessions, and Jus Successionis, Pon­tificum Romanorum in eo­fundatur; quod Petrus Se­dem suam, Jubente Domi­no, Romae Collocaverit. Bel­larm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. Jure Divino too; by Divine Right and Succession. Now if this be true; if Succession to Peter carry Supremacy with it, Then seeing they constantly say, 1. That Peter was Ecclesia Antiocheia hos Anno (Christi. 39.) à Petro Instituta, & 7. An­nis ab eodem administrata. Baron. ad An. Christ. 39. §. 9. Tom. 1. p. 269. Edit. Antverp. 1612. seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome. 2. And that Baron. ibid. §. 18. p. 272. and in their pre­sent Roman Breviary, Antverp. 1660. They have a Holy-day for St. Peter's Installment at Antioch; In Cathedrâ Sancti Petri Antiochiae, (so they call it) In parte Breviarij Hiemali▪ ad di­em. 22. Februarij. And we are there told, that that Festival was call'd Cathe­dra Petri; Quia Primus Apostolorum Petrus hodiè Episcopatus Cathedram sus­cipisse referatur. Ibid. Lect. 3. p. 760. Col. 2. And for this they cite St. Augustin De Sanctis, Serm. 15. n known supposititius and spurius scrap, unworthily father'd on St. Augustin. Euodius was his Successor there. I desire to know, why the Su­premacy did not descend to Euodius, his first and immediate Successor? For admit, that Peter had such Supremacy, and that it was not Personal, but to be transmitted to some Suc­cessor; (both which are manifestly untrue) yet seeing such Transmission of his Suprema­cy, must be done either, 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour. Or, 2. By some Act of Peter, transmitting his Supremacy to his Suc­cessor at Rome, and not to Euodius at Antioch: it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour, or Peter. For if they can, we will submit, and give the Cause; but if they cannot, then seeing, idem est non esse & non apparere; they must pardon our unbelief, if we assent not to that, which they cannot prove. I say, cannot prove; there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years, (I might give more) either expresly affirming, or from which it may (by good Consequence) be deduced, that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome, more then to the Bishop of Antioch. If any man think otherwise, let him [Page 134] give us good proof of the contrary, and we will give him thanks and the Cause. 2. But ad­mit, that the Pope succeeds Peter, and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri, as his Successor, (which is evidently untrue) yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy; if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Savi­our (before Peter was Bishop any where) and by his own Appointment, sat in our blessed Sa­viour's Place and Episcopal Chair, as his Suc­cessor; I say, if this appear, then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter, so his Successor will be greater then the Pope, and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy, as our bles­sed Saviour's immediate Successor, then the Pope can possibly have, as Peter's. Now for this, let our Adversaries consider, what Epipha­nius says, Thus; [...]. &c. Hic Primus Episcopalem Cathe­dram caepit, cum ei Ante Coeteros Omnes, Suum ei in Terris Thronum Dominus Tradisset. Epiphanius Adversus Haeres. lib. 3. Tom. 2. Haeres. 78. §. 7. pag. 1039. B. James the Brother of [...] Lord was the first Bishop, when our blessed Savio [...]r concredited and resign'd to him, before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth. And he [...] let it be consider'd, 1. That in Scripture [...] blessed Saviour is call'd 1. Pet. 2. 25. a Bishop, Vnivers [...] Bishop of the whole Church; with Rev. 17. 14. & 19. 16. Monarchi [...]cal and Kingly Power. 2. He was in a particula [...] and peculiar way, Bishop of the Jews; he [...] [...], a Peculiar Oversight and Cure [...] them. He was sent (in Person) only to Matth. 10. 6. & 15. 24. Rom. 15. 8. them: He Constituted a Church among [...] them, Ordain'd Apostles, and Seventy othe [...] Luk. 10. 1. 2.Inferior Ministers, whom he sent to Preac [...] and do Miracles in Confirmation of their Do­ctrine; [Page 135] he constantly preached the Gospel a­mongst them, and did all those Acts a Bishop should do in his Diocese. 3. And Jerusalem being the Metropolis of the Jews, Epiphanius tells us, that it was (on Earth) his Throne, (Thro­nus suus) his Episcopal Seat, or Chair; where he usually was, preach'd and did Miracles. 4. He says, That our blessed Saviour chose James, before all the Rest, even before Peter) and concredi­ted and resigned to him, Thronum suum, his Episcopal Seat, and that James was Bishop of Je­rusalem, is attested by all Antiquity. And this probably was the Reason, 1. Why Paul Gal. 2. 9. names James (as Bishop of Jerusalem) before Peter. 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles, James (and not Peter) gave the definitive Act. 15. 13. 19. 20. Sentence. So that these things seem to me certain, 1. That our blessed Saviour, though Bishop of the Universal Church, yet he had a Particular Episcopal Cure, and Charge of the Jews, As his Father was King of all the World, yet Particularly of the Jews. God your King: (so Samuel tells them) and so 1. Sam. 8. 7. and cap. 10. 19. 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was So Josephus and Philo call the Jewish Government, from Moses to Saul. God was per­sonally their King. 1. He himself Personally did give them all their Laws. 2. He Personally sent his Vice-Roys, Mo­ses, Joshua, and all the Judges. 3. He received, and personally answered all their last Appeals, which are evident Cha­racters that he was their Supream Power, their King. [...]. 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure. 3. And (if Epi­phanius say true) our blessed Saviour himself ap­pointed him his Successor. Let our Adversa­ries (by so good Authority) shew; that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor, either at Rome, (as some of them, before mention'd, on­ly pretend) or any where else; and (for my part) let them take the Cause. Otherwise, if they cannot, then we may evidently conclude, [Page 136] That if James never did, nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church, though our blessed Saviour's Succes­sor; much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter. Q. E. D.

4. But the Pope (they say) is Christ's Vicar; and that he is, or should be so, we grant. But we further say; that many thousands (besides him) are Christ's Vicars as well, and as much as he. This has been manifestly proved before. I shall only add; that the Trent Fathers (who, far they, Synodus à Spiritu Sancto, qui est Spiritus Sa­pientiae & Intellectûs Edo­cta declarat, &c. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. de Com­munione, cap. 1. And yet what it declares there is most evidently untrue. were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and so surely Infallible) expresly say, and Syno­dically define, That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention, left all Priests his Christus à Terris Ascensurus ad Coelos, Sa­cerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit tanquam Praesides ac Judices, ad quos Omnia Mortalia Crimina deferantur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ, cap. 5. De Confessione. vid. Aqui­nat. part. 3. Quaest. 8. Art. 6. in Corpore. own Vicars, to whom, as to Presidents and Judges, all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd. And Aquin. 2. 2. Quaest. 88. Art. 12. Praelatus ge­rit Vicem Christi. Aquinas, (and their Schoolmen) say; That in the Church, the Bishop is Christ's Vicar; and they prove it well, from the express and plain words of the 2. Cor. 2. 10.Apostle; and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden, a Learned Sorbon Doctor, in his Annotations upon those Texts, says the same thing. And now if to be Christ's Vicar, give any ground or pretence to Supremacy, then all Bishops and Priests (who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars) may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope. And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absol­ving and Retaining Sins, Si periculum mor­tis immineat, approbatús (que) desit Confessarius, Quilibet Sacerdos Potest à Quibus­cunque Censuris & Pecatis absolvere. Rituale Roma­num Pauli Papae. 5. Jussu Editum Antverp. 1652. De Sacramento Poeni­tentiae pag. 61. & 65. every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope, as he him. So that any Argument drawn from this Title, [Page 137] that he is Christ's Vicar, to prove the Popes Su­premacy, is not only Inconsequent, but Im­pertinent, and indeed Ridiculous: And yet up­on this ground, and another as Insignificant, Pope Innocent the Fourth, in their General Coun­cil at Lions, Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick; Seeing (says the Pope there) we are Christ's Cum Jesu Christi Vices teneamus in Terris, Nobísque in Petri personâ dictum sit, Quodcunque Ligaveris, &c. Memora­tum Principem Omni Dig­nitate privatum denuncia­mus, & Sententiando pri­vamus; Omnésque ei Ju­ramento Fidelitatis astri­ctos, à juramento absolvi­mus; inhibentes ne quis­quam de Coetero ei, ut Im­peratori pareat; & qui Ip­si favorem aut auxillum praestiterint, sint Ipso facto Excommunicati. Cap. ad Apostolicae, 2. Extra de Sent. & re judicata. vid. Cap. Quanto. 3. Extra de Translatione Episcopi. Vicar on Earth; and it was in the Person of Peter said to us, Whatsoever thou binds on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity, absolve his Sub­jects from all Oaths of Allegiance, and Excommu­nicate all who shew him any favour, or obey him as Emperor. And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us; Cum in Petri Cathedrâ Sedeat, summum in eo Dignitatis gradum, non ullis humanis Constitutio­nibus, sed divinitùs datum agnoscit: Estque Moderator Vniversalis Ecclesiae, ut Petri Successor, & in terris verus Christi Vicarius. Ita Catechis. Trident. part. 2. cap. 7. de Ordinis Sacramento. §. 28. vid. etiam Bullarium Romanum, Tom. 1. pag. 347. Col. 1. §. 6. where Alexand. Papa. 6. gives all the West-Indies to the King of Spain, as Vicar of Christ. That the Pope has (by Divine Right, (not by any Human Constitutions) that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction, over the Vniversal Church, as Peter's Successor, sit­ting in his Chair, and as Vicar of Christ.

5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence, is, That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. They seem to be in Love with these words, Dabo Tibi Claves, &c. For in their Vid. Breviarium Romanum, in Cathedrâ S. Petri Antiochiae. Febr. 22. & in Festo Cathedrae S. Petri qua Romae pri­mum Sedet. Jan. 18. Bre­viarij parte Hiemali. Offices, for only two of St. Peter's Festivals, they are repeated almost Twenty times. But how Im­pertinent [Page 138] this is, to prove any Supremacy (much less their Papal Monarchy) will evident­ly appear, in that this Power of the Keys, which they would appropriate to the Pope, was given to the rest of the Apostles, as well as to Peter (as is proved before) nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World. For, 1. So their own Roman Breviary, published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth, and after­wards revised by Clement the Eighth, and Vrban the Eighth expresly says; for having told us, that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter: it follows; Petro dedit Claves; transivit quidem etiam in Alios Apostolos vis potesta­tis illius, & in Omnes Ec­clesiae Principes. Breviar. Rom. in Festo Cathedr. S. Petri Antioch. Febr. 22. Lect. 9. Part. Hiema­li. p. 762. Edit. Antverp. 1660. That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church. 2. Their Trent Catechism, having Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. spoke of the Power of the Keys; afterwards tells us, to whom our blessed Saviour gave and concredited that Pow­er before he Ascended into Heaven; And it was To the Eam Potestatem E­piscopis & Presbyteris con­cessit. Ibid. §. 9. Bishops and Presbyters. So that Ca­techism, publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, by Pope Pius the Fifth. And, 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Au­thentick Form how they Ordain a Priest; in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest, in the very same Joh. 20. 22. 23. words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles— Pontificale Roma­num jussu Clement. 8. re­stitutum Rom. 1611. p. 52. Accipe Spiritum San­ctum quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; & quorum retinueritis, re­tenta sunt. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you remit, they are re­mitted; And whose sins you retain, they are re­tained. 4. Lastly; The Trent Fathers are yet (if that be possible) more express; For speak­ing of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolu­tion, They Declarat Synodus, falsas esse Doctrinas Om­nes, quae ad alios quosvis praeter Episcopos, & Pres­byteros, Clavium Ministe­rium extendunt, Putantes verba illa, Quodcunque Li­gaveris, &c. & quorum remiseritis peccata, remit­tentur, &c. ad Omnes fi­deles indifferenter dict [...], &c. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ, cap. 6. declare all their Opinions to be false [Page 139] and erroneous, who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys, belong to any, save The Bishops and Presbyters; and who think those words—Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth, &c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted, &c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful; and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose, remit and retain sins. In which words the Council does (I suppose) Infallibly De­clare (at least in our Adversaries Opinion) 1. That those two Matth. 16. 19. & Joh. 20. 23. Texts (which are cited in the Margent of the Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633. p. 152. Council) are to be understood of the Power of the Keys; though in one of them (that of John) the Keys be not expresly named. 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters, but to none else; neither to Lay­men nor any Inferior Orders.

By the Premisses, I think it evident, (and con­fess'd by our Adversaries) that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys, as well as Peter, and (since they left the World) every Bishop and Priest, as well as the Pope. Whence it further (and mani­festly) follows; That 'tis impossible that the Bishop of Rome, or any of his party, should (as they vainly indeavor) prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys; which is common, and really possess'd by so ma­ny thousands beside himself. For this is just as if Ti­tius should brag, that he is far richer then Sempro­nius, because he has Five hundred pounds per An­num; when Sempronius has an equal Estate, and of the very same Value. Or as if Sejus should say he [Page 140] had far greater Power then Cajus, when the Pow­er given them by the Emperor was equal and the same. And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges, that in their Bulls, and Papal Constitutions, received into the Body of their Canon Law, Dabo Tibi Claves, this Power of the Keys, is laid as a (Sandy and Insig­nificant) Foundation, on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Suprema­cy. I shall Instance only in two (though I might in many more,) 1. In that famous Decretal of In­nocent the Third (before cited) wherein he impi­ously and ridiculously indeavors to prove, that the Papal Dignity, is as much Vid. Cap. Solicit. 6. Extra de Major. & Obe­dientiâ. Where the Lem­ma or Title prefix'd to that Decretal is thus— Imperium non praeest Sacer­dotio, sed subest, & ei Obe­dire Tenetur. This he indeavours to prove by several ridiculous Instan­ces; and then comes with Dabo Tibi Claves, & quod­cun (que) Ligaveris, as a most known ground of his Supremacy. Illud tanquam Notissimum omittamus, quod Dominus dixit Petro & in Petro ad Successores Ipsius; Quodcunque Liga­veris, erit ligatum in Coe­lis, &c. Nihil excipit, qui dixit Quodcunque, &c. And a little before he tells the Emperor of Con­stantinople, (to whom he writes) Quanta est Inter Solem & Lunam, Tanta inter Pontifices & Reges, Differentia Cognoscatur. greater then the Im­perial, as the Sun is greater than the Moon: And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position, he comes at last, to this, Dabo Tibi Claves, to the Power of the Keys, as the most known ground of his Supremacy. 2. The second Instance, is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth, in his Impious Ex­communication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick, (who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth) in the Coun­cil of Lions. It is Cap. ad. Apostol. 2. De Sent. & re Judica­ta. In. 6. Extant in the Canon Law, and two things there prefix'd to that most Impi­ous Decretal. 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council, for a perpetual Innocentius Sacro praesente Concilio in Memo­riam Sempiternam. memory of it. And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichri­stian Pride and Impiety. 2. That the Pope can De­pose the Papa Imperatorem depo [...]ere potest ex Causis Ligitimis. Emperor for lawful Causes. And then, in that Impious Decretal, he grounds his Power [Page 141] to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of Cum à Christo No­bis in Petri Persona dictum sit; Quodcunque Ligaveris super Terram, Ligatum e­rit in Coelis, &c. Memora­tum Principem, suis Liga­tum peccatis, Omni Digni­tate privatum denuncia­mus, sententiamus & pri­vamus; Omnésque ei Ju­ramento astrictos, à Ju­ramento perpetuo absolvi­mus; Inhibentes ne quis­quam sibi de Coetero, tan­quam Imperatori pareat. the Keys; which (he says) was given to him in Peter, when our blessed Saviour said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven, &c. so he, (and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past) applies that Power of the Keys (which is pure­ly spiritual) to carnal and temporal ends, and im­pious purposes. And here it seems to me, Consi­derable, (and I believe will seem so, to pious and dis-interessed Persons) that in former Vid. 1. Breviari­um Romanum, by Card. Quignonius, approved and highly commended by Clement the Seventh, and Paul the Third, and often printed at Paris, An. 1536. Again, An. 1537. and at Lions, An. 1543. and at Lions, 1546. and, 1548. and again at Lions, 1556. and at Antv. 1566. and though it be the best Breviary Rome has had this Six hundred years; yet 'tis damn'd by Pius. 5. Bullâ Romae dat. 7. Idus Julij, 1568. 2. Breviarium Romanum, ex Decreto Concilii Trident. Jussu Pij. 5. Antverp. Editum, 1568. & iterum, 1585. Roman Breviaries (as also in our Portiforium or Portiforium Salis. Lond. 1555. Part. Hiemali. in Festo Cathedr. S. Petri, Febr. 22. Brevia­ry of Sarum; and in the Missale Secundum usum, Sarum, Paris. 1555. eo­dem festo & die. Missals of Salisbury and Missale secundum usum Hereford Rothomagi, 1520. eodem Festo & die. Hereford, we have this Prayer;

1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo, Collatis Clavi­bus Regni Coelestis, Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti; Concede, ut Intercessionis e­jus Auxilio, &c. O God, who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter, hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls, grant that by the help of his Intercession, &c. Where it is evident that, (in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too) the Power of the Keys is spiritual, to bind mens souls, (if Im­penitent) [Page 142] and (if Contrite and truly Penitent) to loose them. I say spiritual, for edification and saving mens souls, and not temporal, for Deposing Kings and Emperors, and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegi­ance.

2. But this Doctrine was not pleasing to the Pope and his Party; And therefore in their late Breviarium Rom. Antv. Ann. 1660. parte Hiemali, in Festo Cathe­drae Petri Antioch. Febr. 22. p. 759. & parte aesti­vâ in Festo Cathedrae Pe­tri Romae, Jan. 18. Ibid. p. 698. Breviaries and Missal. Rom. Antv. 1619. In Festo Cathedrae Petri Romae, Jan. 18. p. 331. And they have the same again in Festo Ca­thedrae Petri Antiochiae, Febr. 22. Missals, they have left out the word Animas, Souls, and say only, that God had given Peter Power of binding and loosing; not mentioning in that Prayer, what it was he had Power to bind and loose.

3. But that we may better know their meaning and reason why they left out the word Souls; it follows, a little after in those late Offices— Dict. Brev. Rom. Antv. 1660. in Festo Ca­thedrae Petri Antiochiae, Febr. 22. In Resp. post Lect. 4. p. 760. Partis Hi­emalis. And that it might not be forgotten, (being a Doctrine that makes so much for the Papal Interest) it is re­peated again, in Festo Petri & Pauli, Jan. 29. Partis aestivae, p. 482. & in Festo Petri ad vincula. Ibidem p. 541. Tu es Pastor ovium, Princeps Apostolorum; Tibi Though I find the word Animas, left out in some of their Older Of­fices; yet these words Tibi Tradidit, &c. I find in none till of late. tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi; & Ideo Tibi traditae sunt Claves Regni Coelorum. They all agree, That the Power of binding and loosing is (as they call it in that Prayer) Pontifi­cium, the Pontifical or Papal Power; and having told us, That God had given All the Kingdoms in the World, to Peter and his Successors; they add, That Ideo, Therefore he gave him Pontificium, the Papal Power of binding and loosing, superior to all Kingly The Popes Tribu­nal (they say) is Supremus Justitiae Thronus. So Pius the Fifth in this his Bull, [...]. 3. Power; so that they might, by it, Depose Kings and Emperors, if they were not Obedient to the Pope; for so their Popes (as appears before) have, in Thesi, affirm'd, and (in their Bulls, their Publick and Authen­tick Constitutions approved, and publickly [Page 143] maintain'd that Doctrine; and ( in Praxi) to the fatal Mischief and Disquieting of the We­stern World, the ruin of many Princes, and scandal of Christian Religion, impiously acted according to it, and put it in practice; when they had advantage and opportunity.

By the Premisses, I hope it may (and does) appear, that all those Honorary Titles given to the Pope, or his See, ( Apostolicus, Sedes Apostoli­ca, Cathedra Apostolica, Peter's Successor, Christ's Vicar, the Power of the Keys, Prince of the Apostles, &c. having been Anciently given to Thousands (beside the Pope) who never had, nor dream'd of any Supremacy: Though in these late, and worst Ages, they have been appropriated to the Bishop of Rome, and (though Old and Inno­cent Titles) made use of, to amuse and deceive the Ignorant, to cover, and give some Colour and Credit to New Errors, and made Argu­ments to prove (what he never had) the Popes Supremacy; yet 'tis Evident, that all such Ar­guments, drawn from such Topicks, are not on­ly inconsequent, but (as I said before, and still believe) Impertinent, and indeed ridiculous; and Conclude nothing, save that surely they who bring so bad, had no better Arguments. Two other words there are ( Papa and Summus Ponti­fex) now appropriate to the Bishop of Rome, and as generally and impertinently used (as the for­mer) to Insinuate (what they can never prove) the Popes Supremacy. For many Learned men have evidently proved (or confess'd) that Anci­ently, [Page 144] every Bishop was called Vide Originem Dialogo contra Marcio­nitas Graeco-Lat. per Rad. Westenium, p. 247. & Westenij Notas, pag. 230. 231. Pet. Delalan­de Concil. Antiquorum Galliae Supplemento, p. 35. 36. 39. Baronium in Notis ad Martyrologi­um Rom. ad Diem, Jan. 10. c. p. 35. Nomen Pa­pae transit in Dignitatis Nomen, ut Clerici vene­randi eo nomine Appella­rentur. Postea nomen illud capit esse peculiare Epis­coporum, usque enim ad Annum, 850. Nomen Commune fuit Omnibus E­piscopis, inde peculiarius tribui eonsuevisset Rom. Pontifici, & sequitur, p. 36. Gregorius. Papa. 7. in Concilio Romae habito, 1073. Statuit, ut Nomen Papae Vnicum esset in toto Mundo, &c. Papa, a Pope, and Summus Vid. Pet. de Mar­cade Concord. Sacerdo­tij & Imperij, Lib. 6. c. 13. §. 3. Tom. 2. p. 126. Col. 1. So Ruffinus calls Chromatius, Pontisicem maximum. Vid. Russin. Opuscula, Paris. 1580. E­pist. ad Chromatium, Pon­tificem maximum, post p. 194. So Clemens Romanus (one of the best and An­cientest Popes Rome ever had) calls every Bishop [...], Summus Sacerdos. Clemens Rom. Epist. ad Corinthios, per Patr. Junium, p. 53. Edit. Oxon. 1633. Pontifex too. Baronius a most Zealous and Partial Assertor of the Popes Supre­macy and Monarchy over Kings and Emperors) has, in the Place quoted in the Margent, confess'd (what without great Impudence he could not de­ny) that Anciently every venerable Presbyter was usually call'd Papa, or Pope. Afterwards (he says) the word Papa became common to all the Bishops, though more particularly given to the Bishop of Rome; and he further adds, That the name Papa continued common to All the Bishops, for Eight hundred and fifty years; till Hildebrand ( Pope Gregory the Seventh) in a Council at Rome,) in the Year, 1073. decreed, That there should be but one Pope (meaning himself) in the whole World. Here we see, that Hildebrand (that Prodigy of Plerique tum priva­tìm tum publicè, Hildebrandum Antichristum praedicant, Titulo Christi, negotium Antichristi agitat: in Babyloniâ in Templo Dei Sedet. Super Omne quod Colitur, extollitur, quasi Deus sit, se errare non posse gloriatur, &c. Aventinus Annal. Bojorum, Lib. 5. p. 352. & Lib. 7. p. 473.. Antichristian Pride and Tyranny) appropriates the name Pope to himself and See, which had for Eight hundred years (he might have said a thousand) been commonly given to Bishops and Presbyters, as well as to the Pope. Now I desire to know, how this, or any of the a­foresaid Honorary Titles or Priviledges, (which were common to all Bishops, and usually given them, for many Ages, as well as to the Bishop of Rome); can be an Argument or Ground of the Popes Supremacy, which were confessedly no [Page 145] ground of any such Supremacy in other Bishops, who had the very same Titles and Priviledges, as well, and as much as he? Suppose twenty Swans ( possibili posito in esse, nil absurdi sequitur) to have equal whiteness, and the same Degree of that Quality; To say that any one of those Swans was, by far, the whitest Swan in the World, when as nineteen others were as white as that one: Or sup­pose twenty men of Equal Piety, all having the same Degree of Goodness and Vertue; to say, that any one of them, was, by far, the most Pi­ous man in the World, when nineteen others were as Pious as he; this were certainly irrational, and ridiculous. And yet our Adversaries reason no better, when they say; The Pope being Christ's Vicar, and having the Power of the Keys, has a Mo­narchical Supremacy over all the Bishops in the World; when all those Bishops are Christ's Vicars, and have the Power of the Keys, as well as he. But enough (if not too much) of this. For were it not for the great noise, number, and confidence of our Adversaries, such miserable inconsequent Reasonings, might deserve Pity and Contempt, rather than any serious Answer.

7. Observ. 7. Having made some Observations upon the [...], or Title and Preamble of this Impious Bull; I come now to the Penal part of it, to ob­serve what Punishments and Curses are contain'd in it, and the Persons against whom they are de­nounc'd. For although in the Title prefix'd to the Bull, 'tis call'd, The Damnation and Excommuni­cation of Queen Elizabeth only; yet Thousands be­sides [Page 146] the Queen, are concern'd in those Curses, (as will appear anon). Here then, it is to be Observed,

1. That in this Uncharitable Bull, the Pope Ana­thematizes and Excommunicates the Queen, as a Slave of Flagitiorum Serva. Ita §. 1. who they are who speak ill of Digni­ties, (which the Arch-Angel would not do of the Devil) St. Jude tells us, in his Epistle, vers. 9. Impiety, as an Apostolicae Potesta­tis plenitudine declaramus praedi [...]m Elizabeth Hae­reticam, & Haereticorum fautric [...]m, Anaethematis Sementiam incurrisse, Es­séque à Christi Corporis u­nitate praecisam. §. 3. Heretick, and a Favourer of Hereticks, and Cuts her off from The Vnity of Christ's Body.

2. He deposes and deprives her (so far as the Ple­nitude of his Usurped Power and Tyranny could) of her pretended Quin etiam ipsam Praetenso praedicti regni ju­re, necnon Omni & quo­cunque Dominio, Digni­tate, Privilegioque priva­tam. §. 4. And again; Dictam Elizabeth. Prae­tenso jure Regni privamus. §. 5. right to the Crown of England, and of all, and all manner of Domini­on, Dignity, and Priviledge. By the way; what the Pope speaks here (notwithstanding his In­fallibility) is neither Reason, nor Sense; for if her Right to the Crown, was only (as he calls it) Pretended; he could not possibly take it away, no not by his Plenitude of Apostolical Power (if he really had it): For, 1. (Notwith­standing all his Excommunications and Cur­sing) she might keep that Right, and as strong­ly pretend a Right to the Crown after, as before his Anathema's. 2. And if she had only a Pre­tended Right, then he could not deprive her of any real Right; it being impossible to deprive her of a Right she had not.

3. He Absolves all her Itemproceres, Sub­ditos, & populos dicti Reg­ni, ac coeteros Omnes qui illi Quomodocunque jura­verunt, à Juramento hu­jusmodi, ac Omni prorsus Dominij, fidelitatis & Ob­soquij dehito. Perpetuo ab­solutos, prout nos Autho­ritate Praesentium absolvi­mus, Ibid. §. 5. Subjects, and All O­thers, who were bound to her by Any Oath, from their Oaths, and all Debt of Fidelity and Obe­dience, and that For ever. Where observe, 1. That 'tis not only her own Subjects he ab­solves from Oaths of Allegiance; but All O­thers, [Page 147] who were bound to her, by Any Oath whatsoever. So that if any French-man, Dutch, or Spaniard, any Pagan, Jew, or Turk had sworn to pay her Ten thousand pounds, really (and by the Law of God and Man) due to her; he absolves them from their Oaths; and so (if they had not more Honesty and Conscience then he) she must loose her Money. The Pope, in the mean time, being more kind to Turks, and Pagans, then to (a far better Christian then himself) Queen Elizabeth. 2. He absolves them from all such Oaths For ever. So that, if the Queen had Nay, such is [...] Antichristian [...] and barbarous [...] to those they call [...]; ticks; that when [...] are once actually [...] ju­dicially condemn'd▪ [...] though they turn good Catholicks, and repent never so sincerely; and though our blessed Saviour Jesus would pardon Penitents, yet Antichrist will not. For by the Popish Law, such Penitents are to be put into Prison, and be immured there, and live and dye in a miserable condition. Si dicat Haercticus se velle paenitere, ac Haereses abjurare, de misericordia possit recipi, ut Haereticus poenitens, & Perpetuo Immurari. Nic. Eymericus, Direct. Inquisitorum, part. 3. pag. 516. Col. 1. And Fran. Regne in his Commentary upon Eymericus there. Comment. 46. p. 517. Col. 2. Num. 202. turned Papist, none of her Subjects (if the Popes Absolution had been va­lid) were, by an Oath, (unless they took a new one) bound to Obey her, as their Sove­reign.

4. Nor does he only Absolve all the afore men­tion'd (Subjects and all others) from all Oaths made to the Praecipimus & In­terdicimus Vniversis & Singulis Proceribus, Sub­ditis, Populis & Aliis Prae­dictis, ne illi Ejusvè Mo­nitis, Mandatis, & Legi­bus Audeam Obedire. Ibid. §. 5. Queen; but also severely in­terdicts and prohibits them all, to Obey any of her Laws or Commands. That is; he for­bids them to do that, to which (by the Indi­spensable Law of God and Nature) they were absolutely bound.

[Page 148] 5. And if any of the Persons mention'd in the a­foresaid Particulars, did Praecipimus Vni­versis & Singulis Praedi­ctis, ne Ejus Mandatis aut Legibus audeant Obe­dire, Qui secus Egerint, eos Simili Anathematis Sententiâ Innodamus. I­bidem, §. 5. otherwise, and obey'd any of her Laws or Commands; he pro­nounces the same Excommunication and A­nathema against them. So that, 1. If any French, Spanish, or Italian Papists lived in Eng­land in Queen Elizabeths days; (after the Bull and Excommunication was publish'd, (as many did, and do, either as Merchants or Travellers) and obey'd the Laws of England; (as of neces­sity they must, and ought to conform to the Civil Laws of the Country where they live) all these, (by this wild Bull) did stand Excom­municate. Nor had they any way to Escape it, but either by Leaving the Kingdom, and all their Trade and Interest in it, to their great loss, and possibly the ruin of some: Or by staying here, and disobeying the Queens Laws, (which never was, nor would be permitted) to undergo all the Severity and Penalties of those Laws. 2. But (which is yet much more strange) suppose any Jews, Turks, or Pagans in England in the Queens time; he Excommu­nicates all those, if they obey the Queen; But surely this Rash and Impious Sentence, was not pronounc'd è Cathedrâ; for (which is no good Sign of his Infallibility) he does in this undertake a thing beyond all the Power he did or could pretend to, an absolute Impossibility. For Excommunication being a Selusion and Depriving a man of Ecclesiastical Communi­on, a turning out of the Christian Church; [Page 149] it was absolutely Impossible that either Peter, or the Pope his pretended Successor, should de­prive those of a Communion they never had, or turn them out of a Church in which they never were.

6. He Excommunicates all Papists, as well as Pro­testants, if they obey'd any of the Queens Laws or Commands. So that their Case was this; If they obey'd the Queen, their Sove­reign, (to whom they ought a natural and sworn Allegiance) the Pope Curses and Damns them; and if they did not obey her, (as St. Rom. 13. 4. Paul assures us) God himself would Condemn them. Certainly, all pious and considering Persons will think this an easie choice; and that it is better rather to Obey God then Men, and be­lieve St. Paul rather then the Pope; and yet such is the Power of Error and strong Delusi­on, that the generality of the Papists, (I do not say all) choose to obey the Pope; as shall appear evidently anon, by their many open Re­bellions, and continual Plots and Conspiracies to disquiet the Government, and their Indea­vors (by Pistol or Poyson) to Assassinate and take away the Queens Life. 2. That all Papists who gave any Obedience to the Queens Com­mands or Laws, were Excommunicate, as well as Protestants, is evident by this: That the Popish Party Their Petition was, That Their most holy Lord Gregory the Thirteenth, would give a Declaratory Explication of Pius the Fifth's Bull, against Queen Elizabeth, and her Adhe­rents; that it might be un­derstood so, as always to bind her and the Hereticks, but not the Catholicks, as matters then stood; but hereafter, when Publick Execution of the Bull may be had. The Answer was, These Graces the highest Bishop hath granted to Rob. Parsons and Ed. Campian (who are now coming into England) the Seventeenth day of April, 1580. in the Presence of Rather Oliver Manark Assistant. Camden in his History of Elizabeth, ad Ann. 1580. Elizabeth. 23. pag. 217. Edit. Angl. Lond. 1635. petion'd Pope Gregory the Thir­teenth, Ann. 1580. Elizabeth. 13. That he would declare, that the Bull of Pius the Fifth should al­ways bind the Queen, and all Hereticks, but not [Page 150] the Roman Catholicks, As Things then stood; but hereafter only, when That Bull might be put in Ex­ecution. They were willing to Obey the Pope, and Disobey their Queen, when they had an Opportunity; They Petition the Pope to give them leave to do, what God (by Divine Law, Natural and Positive) had Commanded them to do; that is, to obey their Lawful Sove­reign, and that they will Obey no longer, then till they have a Power and Ability, (with Security to themselves and Estates) to Dis­obey.

7. It is a certain Rule of Law and Justice, that before any Judge can Legally Condemn any; Two things are necessary to preceed; 1. Cogni­tio The necessity of these things ariseth from the Infirmity and Fal­libility of all Human Judges; which is attest­ed by Pope Innocent the Third, in the Canon Law; Judicium Dei ve­ritati, semper inititur, Ju­dicium aut em Ecclesiae, non­nunquam opinionem sequi­tur, quam & fallere Saepe contingit, & falli; prop­ter quod contingit inter­dum, ut Qui Ligatus est apud Deum, apud Ecclesi­am sit solutus; & qui liber est apud Deum, Ecclesiastica sit Sententiâ innodatus. Innocent. 3. Cap. A Nobis. 28. Extra. De Senten­tia Excommunicationis. It is Pope Innocent the Third who says this; and if he was Infalli­ble, (as the Jesuits, Canonists, &c. pretend) then the Church of Rome does ( Saepe) often err in her Excommunications; and if he was not Infallible, then both he and his Successors may err. Causae, a Convenient Knowledge of the Cause; What Accusation the Actor or Plaintiff brings; what Answer and Defence the Reus, or Defendant makes. 2. That the Proofs and E­vidence be such, as may be a just ground for a Damnatory Sentence. If either of these be wanting, either the Judge or Sentence, (or both) are unjust.

[Page 151] And hence it was that a Pagan Judge could tru­ly say, It is Act. 25. 16. not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to Dye, before he which is Ac­cused have the Accuser face to face, and have Ly­cence to answer for himself. Such was the Justice of Pagan Rome. But as Christian (or, I fear, Antichristian) Rome, the Case is alter'd. Pius the Fifth, the pretended Vicar of Christ (our blessed Saviour) Anathematizes and Damns many hundred Thousands, even Two whole Kingdoms at once, Causâ indictâ Gen. 18. 20. 21. The Cry of the Sins of Sodom was great; but be­fore God did destroy them, I will go down And See, whether they have done Altogether according to the Cry of it, which is come to me; and if not, I will know. Si Judicas Cognosce. God gives us an exam­ple, that we ought to be sure of the sin, which deserves it, before we pass Sentence to punish it. But the Pope here, Curses two Kingdoms, without any Hearing or Cognizance of the Cause, or possibility to know (notwithstanding the Cry which might come to Rome) that every one whom he Cursed, deserved it. 2. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for ten righteous men, Gen. 18. 32. But the Pope Curses two Kingdoms, though he neither did, nor possibly could know, but that there might be in them Ten thousand pious Persons who deserved it not: Nay, he Excommunicates them for their Pie­ty to God and their Prince, in Obeying the Commands of both, to which by the Law of God and the Land, they were indispensably obliged. & inau­ditâ. An Action so prodigiously Impious, as hath no ground or pretence for it in Nature or Scripture, or any Precedent amongst Pagans or Christians for a Thousand years after Christ; till Hildebrand, one of the worst in the Papal Catalogue (to the Scandal of Christianity, and fatal Disturbance of Christendom) unhappily Introduc'd it, and his Successors since, have (with like Antichristian Pride and Tyranny) impiously practis'd it.

8. Seeing it appears by this Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, Observ. 8. (as by many more such, published by his Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae, 1638. & ibi Excommunicat. Frideric. 2. à Gregor. 9. Const. 13. Tom. 1. p. 89. & Excommunicat. Hen. 8. à Paul. 3. Tom. 1. p. 514. &c.Predecessors and Gregory the Thirteenth, and Sixtus the Fifth, renewed the Bull of Pius the Fifth. Camden's History of Queen Elizabeth, Ad Ann. 1588. p. 360. 361. Edit. Anglicanae. Successors) that the [Page 152] Bishops of Rome Usurp and Exercise such a vast Extravagant Power, to Excommunicate Kings and Emperors, to Depose and Deprive them of all their Dominions, Honour, and Dignity; to Absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Alle­giance and Fidelity: To Inhibit and Interdict them (against the Laws of God and Man) to give any Obedience to their Lawful Sovereigns; and if they do, to Anathematize and Curse them for so doing; and lastly, to Excommunicate whole Kingdoms at once ( Causa indicta & inauditâ) if they do their Duty, and give any Obedience to their Prince, when they forbid them, &c. I say for this, (and many other Reasons) I believe the Bishop of Rome has the fairest Plea, of any in the World, to be than Man of Sin, and the great An­tichrist spoken of in the Gospel. It is neither my intention or business now, fully to dispute that Question. Whether the Pope be Antichrist? (many have with great success, already, done it) I shall only (in short) give the Reader two or three Ar­guments, or Motives, which (at present) induce me to believe that the Pope is Antichrist; And those Motives, either grounded on Scripture, the Confessions of our Adversaries, the Testimo­nies of many and great men before, or the con­current Consent of the Reformed Churches since Luther. Here consider,

1. That it is not only See the Annotat. on 1. Pet. 5. 13. and Ti­rinus the Jesuit says, (in his Commentary on the same Text) Vnanimitèr [...]sserunt Patres & Docto­res Orthodoxi, Citati apud Bellarminum, Riberam, Viegam, Pererium, Alea­zar. &c. per Babylonem, Romam Intelligi. And so Corn. A Lapide on the same place: The same A Lapide upon Rev. 17. 16. on these words—. Hi odient fornicaeriam, sci­licet, Babylozem; i. e. Ro­mam. Vide Hen. Valesium in Notis ad Lib. 2. Euse­bij Hist. Cap. 15. Nota­rum p. 33. Col. 2. Ribe­ram in Apocal. 14. 8. §. 25. Confess'd by our Ad­versaries (in their Commentaries on 1. Pet. 5. 13. The Church of Babylon salutes you) but in­deavour'd to be proved by many Arguments [Page 153] they bring, That Rome is that Babylon, St. John speaks of, in the Revelation; which he calls the Great Whore, Mother of Harlots, and Abomi­nations of the Earth, and (in more plain Terms) The Rev. 17. 18. Great City which reigns over the Kings of the Earth; which cannot possibly be meant of any but Rome, that being then the only great City, which Reigned over the Kings of the Earth. I know that some of them would have Pamelius Annot. ad Lib. 3. Tertul. adver­sus Marcionem, num. 98. pag. 687. Pagan Rome meant: but this evidently un­true; for, 1. It must be Apostatical Rome; (as indeed it is) for the Apostle expresly tells us; That Antichrist will not come, till an 2. Thess. 2. 3. vid. 1. Tim. 4. 1. [...], An Apostacy from the Faith. Aposta­sie and falling from the Faith come first: which cannot be meant of Pagan Rome; it being im­possible they should fall from the Faith, who never had any. 2. It is meant of that Babylon, or Rome, which St. John calls the Rev. 17. 1. 5. And so Hierome calls her (al­luding to this Place, Cum in Babylone versarer (says he) & Purpuratae Mere­tricis esse [...]s Colonus, & Jure Quiritum viverem, &c. in praefat. ad Didy­mum. Alexandrinum, de Sp. Sancto, Tom. 6. p. 217. And again, lib. 2. Adversus Jovinianum; Sed (Hierom. Tom. 2. p. 379. 380. in calce Li­bri) ad Te loquor, qui scrip­tam in frome blasphemi­am, Christi Confessione de­listi. Vrbs Orbis Dominâ, Maledictionem, quam Tibi Salvator in Apocalypsi Comminatus est, potes ef­fugere per poenitentiam, &c. Marian. Victorius in Notis ad dictum Librum & Locum, num. 68. says he means Pagan Rome. But 'tis certain (which I only cite him for) that Babylon in the Revelation (in Hierom's Opinion) is Rome: Sure I am, that Tertullian is of the same judgment; (Libro adversus Judaeos, cap. 8. pag. 142. num. 106.) Sic & Babylon apud Johannem, Romanae Vrbis figuram portat, proinde & Regno superbae, & sanctorum debellatricis. And he has the same words again, (Lib. 3. Adversus Marcion. cap. 13. num. 98. p. 674.) where Pamelius in his Notes on those places, 1. Would have Pagan Rome meant. However, by Babylon in the Revelation (in Tertullian's Opinion, as well as Hieroms) Rome is meant. 2. He would have those words, ( Babylon Roma) which were in the Margent of a former Edition of Tertullian, blotted out; that men might not be put in mind that Rome was the Mystical Babylon, more Romano, corrupting Records, and blotting out whatever makes against them. Great Whore, and Harlot: but in Scripture, none but Apostates from the Faith, and true See Hos. 1. 2. &c. and Hos. 2. 2. Religion, are call'd so; none but she who was once a Wife, and afterwards falls into Spiritual Whore­dom; which of Pagan Rome neither is, nor can [Page 154] be true. 3. The Actings of Antichrist are call'd 2. Thes. 2. 7. Rev. 17. 5. 7. Mysterium, a Mystery, things hard to be un­derstood: but that Pagan Idolaters should perse­cute and oppress Christians, and be drunk with the Blood of the Saints, this is no Mystery. But that all this should be done in pretence of the only True and Catholick Religion, in Honour of Christ, and by his Vicar; this is indeed a Mystery, not easily understood. So that it is evident, and confess'd, that Rome is Babylon, (Mystical Babylon) call'd so, (as she is call'd Rev. 11. 8. Sodom and Egypt) in respect of that Analogy and Similitude between the Literal and Mysti­cal, the Pagan and Antichristian Babylon, (Ba­bylon Chaldaeae & Italiae.) Some of the Parti­culars wherein that Similitude consists, are here in the The Similitude between the Pagan Ba­bylon, in the Old, and the Antichristian in the New Testament, may appear in this; 1. They were both very great Cities. (Isai. 13. 19. Rev. 16. 19.) 2. They were both Impious and Idola­trous. (Isai. 46. 1. Rev. 9. 20.) 3. They were both Oppressors of the Church of God; the Literal and Pagan Baby­lon, of the Jews, (Jer. 50. 11.) the Mystical Ba­bylon of Christian Church. (Rev. 17. 6.) 4. They both propagated their Impiety, and made o­ther Nations to sin with them. (Jer. 51. 7. Rev. 13. 16. &c. Rev. 17. 2.) 5. In the Pagan Baby­lon God had some Saints and Servants, and they were Commanded to come out of her. (Jer. 50. 8. & 51. 6.) And so in the Mystical Babylon, (Rev. 18. 4.) 6. The destruction of both is de­nounced in the same words, of Pagan Babylon, (Isai. 21. 9. Jer. 51. 8.) and of Mystical Babylon, (Rev. 14. 8. & 18. 2.) Margent; and he who considers what St. John says of the Mystical, and what I­saie and Jeremy of the Literal Babylon, may find more. I take it then for a manifest Truth, (and confess'd by our Adversaries) that by Babylon in the Revelation, Rome is meant, and that it is the Seat of Antichrist. The next Query will be, Who that great Antichrist is, whose Seat is to be at Rome? And this will best appear by the De­scription and Characters of him in Scrip­ture.

[Page 155] 2. One Characteristical Note and Mark of Anti­christ, is given by 2 Thess. 2. 4. [...]. St. Paul; That he is an Enemy, an Adversary to Christ (our blessed Sa­viour) so the word in St. Paul properly [...]. Hesychius. [...], Adversarius. Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli. Etymolog. Mag­num, in verbo [...]; which he renders [...]. and then adds; [...]. signifies; so their Authentick; Vulgar Latin Filius perditionis, qui Adversatur.translates it, and their Learned Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 2. 4. Com­mentators prove it. So that we are agreed on this; That Antichrist (whoever he be) is an Ad­versary to our blessed Saviour; and though he may pretend (as we know he does) to be Christ's Vicar, and Act by his Authority, and for him; yet he is really his Adversary, and acts in Opposition, and Contradiction to him. Now if this be a true Cha­racter of Antichrist (and it is St. Pauls) then the Pope has a fairer Plea to be that Beast, then any man in the World. For under the Name and Notion of Christ's Vicar, and by a vainly pretended and usurped Power from him, he acts contrary to Christ, and the express Com­mands of the Gospel. I shall (of many) give two or three Instances, 1. Our blessed Saviour, at the Institution of the Eucharist, expresly Commands his Disciples (and so all Christians, who are of Age and rightly qualify'd) Matth. 26. 27. Drink Ye All of this: And another Evangelist tells us, that they obey'd, and Mark. 14. 23. Did All Drink. But the Pope, in Contradiction to this, Concilium Con­stantiense, Sess. 13. abso­lutely forbids all (save the Priest who Conse­crates) to drink the Eucharistical Cup; and so (in Contradiction to our Saviour's Command) deprives them of half that Sacrament. And this they do with a blasphemous Impiety, for­bidding [Page 156] bidding all Laicks to have the Communion in both kinds, Notwithstanding the Licet Christus post coenam, Instituerit, & Dis­cipulis sub Vtrâque Specie panis & vini administra­verit: Hoc non Obstante, &c. Ibid. Institution of Christ, and notwithstanding that in the 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. Primi­tive Church it was Received in both kinds: and they further declare them Pertinacitèr asseremes oppositum, tanquam Haeretici arc [...]ndi sunt & Gravitèr puniendi. Ibidem. Hereticks, who think o­therwise; and Command, that no Priest shall ad­minister it in both kinds to any Lay-man, under pain of Nul­lu [...] Presbyter sub poenâ Excommunicationis, Communicet populum sub utraque Specie. Ibidem. Excommunication. By the way; it is observable, That it is Confess'd by our Adversa­ries Lindanus in Panoplia, Lib. 4. Cap. 56. pag. 342. Edit. Colon. 1575.Lindanus, Cardinal Card. Bona de rebus Liturgicis. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. pag. 491. 492. Paris. 1672. Bona, &c.) that the whole Church of God (Lay and Clergy) for a­bout One thousand two hundred years, Received in both kinds, even the Church of Rome her self: And after that, in In Qui­busdam Ecclesiis observatur, ut populo Sanguis Sumendus non detur. Aquinas part. 3. Quaest. 8. Art. 12. in Corpore. Aquinas his time, it was but in some Which was about the year of Christ, 1265. Bellarmine de Script. Ecclesiasticis, in Tho. Aquinate. Churches, that the Cup was deny'd to the Laity. The sum is this; He who acts in Opposition and Contradiction to our blessed Saviour's Commands in the Gospel, abrogates them, (so much as in him lies) calls them He­reticks, and Excommunicates those who obey them, and Incourages those who disobey Christ, and obey him; he (I say) is an Adver­sary to Christ and Antichrist. But (by the Pre­misses) it appears, that the Pope does all this, [Page 157] more signally in taking away the Cup in the Eucharist then any (who pretends to be a Christian) in the whole World; Ergo, he is Antichrist. 2. The next Instance whereby it may appear, that the Pope is [...], an Ad­versary to our blessed Saviour, and so has one Character of Antichrist, is this; St. Paul in his Epistle to the 1. Cor. 14. Corinthians, tells them, (and he says they are the Ibid. vers. 37. The things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. Commandments of Christ he writes) 1. That it is the Commandment of our blessed Saviour, that in their Assemblies all things be done to Ibid. vers. 26. & vers. 12. Edification. 2. That speaking in an unknown Tongue, does not Ibid. vers. 17. E­dify or Ibid. vers. 6. Profit the Church to which he speaks; Ibid. vers. 2. 9. 14. 15. 16. because they understand not what he says. 3. He absolutely forbids all speaking in their As­semblies (if there be none to Interpret) in any Ibid. vers. 28. unknown Tongue. Now whether the Pope be not [...], an Adversary to Christ, let the Reader Judge, by that which follows. Our blessed Saviour expresly Commands, that in the Assemblies of Christians all things should be in a Tongue understood by the People, for their Edification, (and the Apostle thinks it Ibid. vers. 23. mad­ness to do otherwise) that they might know his Precepts and gracious Promises; and so their Duty, and Incouragements to do it. But the Pope (as all know) in Contradiction to this, absolutely forbids what our blessed Saviour ex­presly Commands; and prohibits all Publick Prayers in any Vulgar Tongue; nay, the print­ing, reading, or having their own Cum quidam Missa­le Romanum, ad Gallicam vi [...]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. Roman Mis­sal [Page 158] in French Vid. Bullam Clo­ment. 9. Rom. 9. April, 1668. It was to be burnt by the Bishop or Inquisi­tors, even their own Mis­sal in French., into which it was faithfully Translated, (not by any Hereticks, but by good Roman Catholicks). This evidently appears by the Authentick Bull of Pope Alexander the Se­venth, and some of his words cited in the Mar­gent. And he there tells us, That the Transla­tors and Publishers of that Missal, were Studiers of Novelties, to the 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. ruin of Souls; Contemners of the Sanctions and Practise of the Church; and that they were Sons of Perdition. But in this, I think his Holiness was not well advised. For if the Apostles 2. Thess. 2. vers. 3. 4. Character of Antichrist be true, he himself has a better claim to that Ti­tle, and really is (what he calls them) The Son of Perdition. What they say in Answer to St. Paul, and the clear Texts against all praying to, or praising God in an unknown Tongue, is most Irrational, and Indeed Impertinent. It is not my Business or Intention (in this place and time) particularly to Examine it; but refer the Reader to their 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. Learned Writers for their Latin Prayers, where he may see what they say; and if he be Intelligent, and an Impartial Seek­er, and Lover of Truth, he will find that St. Paul Condemns all Prayers to, and Praises of God in an unknown Tongue. Sure I am, a very Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Hen. Holden. The­ologus Parisiensis, in An­notat. ad i. Cor. 14. Pa­ris. 1660. Notes on that place in St. Paul (convinc'd with the E­vidence of the Text and Truth) does acknow­ledge it, and explains St. Paul as I have done. If they damn and burn their own Offices in a­ny Vulgar Tongue, (which deserve to be burnt [Page 159] for many other better Reasons) we may easily guess (when they have power to do it, which I pray and hope they never will) what they will do with ours. 3. But that which is the high­est and most evident Instance, that the Pope is [...], an Adversary and Enemy to our blessed Saviour Christ, and true Christianity, is; That whereas the Gospel was writ to be read and studied (by all who had ability) as the great means of their Salvation; and ac­cordingly was Translated into all Christian Languages, and all permitted to have and read it; that they might (for their direction and comfort) know the holy Precepts, and graci­ous Promises contain'd in it; and continued so to this Day in all Christian Churches (except Rome) and in that too, for many hundred years after Christ, while Latin was their Vul­gar Tongue. But when the Impiety and Ty­ranny of the Bishops of Rome unhappily pre­vail'd, the Gospel it self, and the whole Book of God, was reckon'd amongst Damned Books▪ and Authors, and not permitted to be 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. read in any Vulgar Tongue; no not so much as any Summary or Historical Compendium of it. And further, amongst the Rules of the Index Expur­gatorius, publish'd by the Command of the Trent Council, we are told, (with great Impie­ty and Blasphemy) that by permitting the Scrip­ture to be commonly read in Vulgar Tongues, there comes Plus inde ob homi­num temeritatem, Detri­menti quam Vtilitatis O­riri. Ibid. Reg. 4. In Indi­ce Alexand. 7. p. 4. more Mischief than Bene [...]it. Pope Vr­ban the Eighth says 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. the very same, (with as [Page 160] much Impiety as his Predecessors) and further adds; That all who have any prohibited Books, (of which number it is Evident the Bible in any Vulgar Language is one) they must bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor, and they must Burn them presently, by the hand of the Hangman, or some such Officer, (for I suppose they are not to do it themselves). And we have a late and further Instance of this Antichristi in Impiety, in a Bull of Pope Clement the Ninth. The New Testament (as appears by the Bull) was Tran­slated into French, and Printed at Lions; The Pope (Animus meminisse horret) 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. Damns and prohibits it, under the very Name, The New Te­stament of our Lord Jesus Christ; and Excom­municates all, of what dignity soever, who shall print, sell, read, or have it; and Commands (under pain of Excommunication) that they who have it, bring it to the Ordinary or li qui Libros prohi­bitos habuerint, cos ad Episcopum aut Inquisitores deserant, qui eos quantocy­us Comburere debeant. Ibid. §. 3. In­quisitors; and what they must do, with it, the Bull of Vrban the Eighth, (but now Cited) will tell you; they must burn it, and (as a damned Book) abolish it. So Clement the Ninth Com­mands the 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 Roman Ritual in French, to be burnt. But that which makes their Error and Impiety more evident, is; That even then and there, where they absolutely prohibit the Go­spel in any Vulgar Tongue, and Damn it to the Fire, they permit the Item Alboranus Mahometis in Linguâ Vulgari, ex Concessione In­quisitorum haberi possit. Index Librorum prohi­bitorum. Alexandr. 7. E­dit. Rom. 1664. pag. 3. the Turkish Alcaron in a Vulgar Tongue, with leave had from the Inquisitors, who yet could give no leave to any (as appears before by the Rules of their [Page 161] Expurgatory Biblin quocunque I diomate Vulgari conscripta. Ita Index Librorum prohibitorum, Alexand. 7. Jussu Editus Romae, 1667. verbo Biblia, p. 14. Index) to have the Gospel, or any part of it, in any Vulgar Tongue. Pro­digious Impiety! The Turkish Alcoran (the con­trivance of a Monstrous Impostor, and Enemy to Christ and Christianity) is permitted; and the Gospel of our blessed Saviour is absolutely prohibited and damn'd. And though in doing this, they Act very Impiously, yet (in their Ge­neration and Circumstances) very wisely. For neither the Alcoran, nor any Book in the World, is so fatal to their miscall'd Catholick Religion, as (when truly understood and believ'd) the Bible. That Book evidently discovers, and condemns their Errors; and therefore they are concern'd to keep it from the People, least they should find (as by that Divine Light they easily might) and forsake their Errors. The Pre­misses consider'd, let the Reader judge, Whe­ther the Pope have not this Mark of the Beast, and Character of Antichrist, that he is, [...] the Adversary of Christ, and that Religi­on Establish'd by him; who prohibits the ha­ving and reading (and so the Understanding) of the Gospel, Damns it to the Fire, and burns it; and yet at the same time permits the Alcaron.

3. Another Characteristical Note or Mark of Antichrist given by St. Paul, is; That he Exalts himself above all that is called God, or Worship­ped; So our English Translation; so their Authentick Vulgar Extollitur super Omne quod dicitur Deus, aut quod Colitur. Clem. 8. in Bibliis, 1592. Latin; and their own Learned Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 4. §. 27. Commentators justifie it. The [Page 162] word in the Text properly [...], 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, [...]. signifying, Id quod Colitur, any thing or Person, which is the Object of Honour and Veneration. So that thus far we are agreed, That Antichrist will Ex­alt himself above all that is called God, (as all Magistrates Subordinate and Supream, Kings and Emperors in Scripture are) or worshipped. This then ( in Thesi) being granted; we must next ( in Hypothesi) Inquire, Whether this Chara­cteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist, may be truly affirm'd of the Pope, and be really found in him? In Answer to which Query, I say; I hope it may, and does appear by the Premisses, That the Pope does Exalt himself, far above all Kings and Emperors, more then any man in the World ever did, or (Antichrist excepted) ever will; and therefore I shall only add two or three things in Confirmation of the Premisses. 1. Then, his Favourers and Flatterers give him (and he approves and assumes it) The Sanctiss. Vrban. 8. Vniversi Imperator. Ange­lus Maria Cherubinus, in Calce. Tom. 4. Bulla­rij Romani, Rom. 1638. pag. 120. Title of Emperor of the Vniverse. Upon this account, That the Pope is Emperor of the Vniverse, of the whole World; it follows, That all Kings and Emperors are his Subjects, and he their Su­pream Lord and Sovereign, and so, far greater in Power, then any one, or all of them toge­ther. And least we should mistake, and under­value his Papal Greatness; Pope Innocent the Third told the Emperor of Constantinople, (and has told us in the Body of their approved and received Law) That the Pope is as much greater then the Emperor, as the Vid. Cap. Solicit 6. Extra. De Major. & Obed. Quanta est inter Solem & Lunam, tanta in­ter Pontifices & Reges dif­ferentia cognoscatur. Sun is greater then the [Page 163] Moon. And here the Author of the Gloss, ( Bernardus de Botono, a great Lawyer, but no good Astronmer) tells us, That the Sun is 47. times greater then the Moon; and so (by that Computation) the Pope is 47. times greater then the Emperor. This is pretty well, and gives so vast a Magnitude to the Pope above the Em­peror, that a man would think it might satisfie his Ambition, so that he needed not ask, nor his greatest Flatterers give him more. Yet they do give much more. For in a Marginal Note on the said Chapter, (in their most Vid. Corpus Juris Canon. cum Glossis. Pa­ris. 1612. Correct Editions of their Law) we are told, That the Sun is greater then the Moon, Quinquagies Septi­es, 57. times; and so the Pope so much greater then the Emperor. But this is not all. Lauren­tius (a Canonist) in the same Palam est, quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem▪ Lunae 7744 ½. Vice Addit. ad Gloss. verb. Inter Solem. Ad dictum cap. 6. place, tells us; That it is evident, that the Sun is 7744 ½ greater then the Moon; and so the Pope (omitting the Fra­ction) Seaven thousand, seaven hundred, and forty four times greater then the Emperor. This is so prodigiously erroneous and impious, as none, save their most Holy and Infallible Guide, could be guilty of such Error and Impiety. But a Learned Roman Clavius Comment. in Johan. de Sacro Bosco. p. 189. Catholick (who un­derstood Astronomy, and the Magnitude of the Sun, (much better then the Pope, or his Parasites) seriously tells us, that the Sun is greater then the Moon. 6539. times. And so by the Popes Logick and Decretal Definition, and the Com­putation of his best Artists, he must be. 6539. times greater then the Emperor. Monstrous [Page 164] Pride and Ignorance! which is so far from proving him to be our blessed Saviours Vicar, that it evidently proves him, to be that 2 Thess. 2. 4. Man of Sin, the great Antichrist, who exalts himself ( [...]) above all Kings and Emperors. Certainly Antichrist cannot exalt himself more, then to declare to the World, (as the Pope here does) in his Publick Laws and Constitutions, that he is. 6539. times greater then any King or Emperor. So that al­though St. Rom. 13. 1. Paul, and 1. Pet. 2. 13. Peter too, acknowledged the Emperors Power Supream, and requi­red that all men (even the Pope if he were a man) should conscienciously obey them; though St. Paul Act. 25. 11. appeal (not to Peter, but) to Caesar, as Supream: Though Athanasius say, That there lay no Athanasius in A­pologia, ad Constantium Tom. 1. p. 680. D. Appeal from the Emperor, but to God; and though Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. & Apolog. c. 30. Tertullian say, That the Empe­ror was, Solo Deo minor; and the Bishops of Rome, for almost One thousand years after our blessed Saviour, acknowledged the Emperors their So­vereign Lords, yet Hildebrand and his Succes­sors, have (as above) exalted themselves far a­bove all that is call'd God, and have that inde­lible Character of Antichrist. Q. E. D. 2. And they further say, That this Vniversal Monarchy is given him by God himself; and so he has it, (not by any Human Right or Injust Usurpa­tion, but Jure Divino) by the Law of God, and a Right derived from him; and this is said, not once only, nor by any private Tu es Pastor Ovi­um, Princeps Apostolorum; Tibi Tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi: Breviar. Roman. Antv. 1660. part. Hiemali, in Festo Cathe­drae S. Petri Antiochiae, in Resp. post Lect. 4. p. 760. Person, (whose Authority might be question'd) but [Page 165] many times in their Authentick Roman Ibid. parte Hiema­li in Festo Cathedrae Sti. Petri Romae, ad diem Jan. 18. p. 700. Col. [...]. & in dicti Breviarij Part. Aestiva, p. 482. In Festo Petri & Pauli, Jun. 29. & ibidem rursus p. 541. In Festo S. Petriad vincula. Bre­viary, restored according to the The [...] or Title of that Breviary, is thus—Breviarium Romanum, ex Decreto Sa­cro-Sancti Concilij Tri­dentini restitutum, [...]ij. 5. Pont. Max. Jussu Editum, & Clement. 8. primum, nunc demum Vrbani P. 8. Authoritate recognitum. Antv. 1660. Decree of the Council of Trent, and revised and publish'd by the Authority and Command of Pius. 5. Clem. 8. Urban. 8. as above. three Popes successively; so that we may be sure they approve it. That Breviary has it thus, (speak­ing of Peter)— Thou art Prince of the Apostles; And God hath Given Thee All the Kingdoms of the World. These are the words of that Authentick Breviary, approved and confirm'd by the Au­thority of those three Popes before mentioned, (as appears by their Bull prefix'd to the Edition) and is now in publick use in their Church. So that he Exalts himself, as Universal Monarch, over all the Kings and Kingdoms in the World; and that (as he impiously pretends) by a Di­vine Right, and the Donation of God himself; And hence it is, That not only the Canonists (the constant and great Parasites of the Pope) but e­ven the Learned Divines of the Roman Church, give the Pope (and he Approves and Assumes) such Extravagant and Blasphemous Titles, as none but the Man of Sin, who Exalts himself above all that is called God, would approve. To pass by many hundreds of the like nature, I shall In­stance only in one. Stapleton (an English man, and a very Learned Professor of Divinity at Doway, in his Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, calls that Pope Stapleton, in Aca­demiâ Duacenâ Theol. Professor, in Epist. Greg. 13. Princip. Fidei Do­ctrin. Demonstrationi praefixa; Papam appellat, Catholicae Ecclesiae Virti­cem Coruphaeotatum, Toti­us Orbis Magistrum & Su­premum in terris Numen.— The High­est Top and Prince of the Catholick Church, The Master of the whole World, and on Earth The Su­pream God or Deity. Certainly, [...]he who ap­proves [Page 166] and admits such Titles to be given him, Exalts himself above all that is called God, and so has the Character of Antichrist mention'd by the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2. 4. And here (though I intended it not) I shall crave leave to add two or three Passages more, which casually come in my way and memory, and are very pertinent to our present purpose. 1. The Gloss on their Nec Deus es, nec Homo, quasi neuteres, inter utrúmque. Glossa ad Pro­oemium Clement. verbo, Papa.Canon Law tells us, That the Pope is neither God nor Man, but something more then Man. And though this Impious and Blasphemous Gloss was Vide Censuram in Glossas Jur. Can. per Tho. Manrique, Colon. 1572. p. 13. 14. Censured to be left out, by the Master of the Sacred Pallace. Yet Vide Indicem Ex­purgat. Olysipone, 1624. p. 350. Clement the Eighth thought otherwise; and those words are still in the best Edition of the Paris. 1612. Canon Law; only with this Note in the Margent, Haec verba sunt sano modo intelligenda, pr [...]lata enim sunt, ad Ostendendum Amplissimam Pontificis Rom. Potesta­tem. But this Gloss is something modest, though it make the Pope more then Man; and being in Verse, may have some Poetical Licence allow'd. 2. But another Gloss in plain Prose expresly says, That it is Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non posse sic statuere, Haereti­cum Censetur. Glossa ad Cap. cum inter. 4. verbo. Declaramus. De verbo­rum signific. Extravag. Johan. 22. our Lord God the Pope. For although in some Edit. Paris. 1519. Old Editions of the Canon Law, it was only Our Lord the Pope; yet now in the most Edit. Paris. 1612. Correct Edi­tions of that Law, confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth, it is (without any Qualification in the Margent) our Lord God the Pope. 3. And to make the Blasphemy full, and evidently Anti­christian, Ant. Puccius in an Oration made by him in their General Lateran Council, speaking to [Page 167] Pope Leo the Tenth, says, Diviniae Majesta­tistuae Conspectus, rutilan­ti cujus fulgore oculi mei Caligant, &c. Crab. Concil. Tom. 3. Conc. La­teran. Sess. 9. p. 648. Col. 2. That the Rayes of His Divine Majesty did dazle his Eyes. Impious and Antichristian Pride and Blasphemy! yet approved at Rome, and by themselves (to their shame) published to the World. Nor is this all: He pretends to, and assumes an Infallibili­ty, and that of so high a Nature, that all his Definitions and Determinations of Doubts (whether è Cathedrâ or not; whether in a Gene­ral Council, or out of it; to be the Word of God. So a Learned Popish Verbum Dei est triplex: 1. Scriptum, sci­licet Scriptura sacra. 2. Non scriptum, Traditio. 3. Explicatum; Cum du­bia in verbo scripto vel non scripto Explicantur, & determinantur: & hoc sit praesertìm per sum­mum Pontificem, sive Ex­tra Concilium, s [...]u in Con­cilio. Lud. Bail: in Ap­paratu de triplici verbo Dei, Tom. 1. Summae Concil. Praefixo. Author tells us; That the Word of God is threefold; 1. His written Word, the Scriptures: 2. His unwritten Word, Traditions: 3. His explained or declared Word; when Scrip­ture or Traditions are declared and explained by the Pope; whether in or out of a Council. And he says; Iste Modus ultimus (the Popes determinations of doubts) Magis Probatus est, & cum majore suavita­te ei Plures acquiescunt. I­bidem in principio dicti Apparatus. That this Last word of God, (the Popes Definitions and Explications) is the most approved, and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it. Though this be much, yet not all. For the Pope does not only pretend to, and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy, over all the Kingdoms of the World; but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them; that he can ( parte inconsultâ) give away Kingdoms ( pro Arbitrio) to whom he pleases. A Memorable, and (for Papal Pride and Injustice) a Prodigi­ous Instance we have of this, in Pope Alexander the Sixth, who at one Clap, gave to De nostra mera Li­beralitate, Omnes Insulas & Terras firmas inventas & Inveniendas, versus Oc­cidentem & Meridiem, fa­bricando unam. Lineam à Polo Arctico ad Antarcticum, quae Linea distet à qualibet Insularum quae Vulgaritèr dictae sunt, De [...] Azores y Cabo Vi [...]rde, Centum Leucis versus occidentem, Cum Omnibus illarum dominijs, Ciritati [...]us, Castris, Villis, Juribus, & Pertinentiis Vniversis, vobis, haeredibus & successoribus in [...]. Constit. 2. Alexand. 6. §. 8. in Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 347. Ferdinand [Page 168] and Elizabeth, (King and Queen of Castile) and their Heirs for ever, All the West-Indies, from Pole to Pole, and all the Isles about them (which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd, and the Azores) with all their Dominions, Cities, Castles, Villages, all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them. And this, he says, he gives, of his own meer Liberality, by Power deriv'd from Peter, and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excom­municates all of what degree soever, Kings and Ac Personis cujus­cúnque Dignitatis, etiam Imperialis, Regalis, &c. sub Excommunicationis latae Sententiae poenâ, districtius Inhibemus, ne ad Insulas aut terras dictas, pro mer­cibus habendis, vel causa aliâ quavis, accedere prae­sumant, absque veniâ ve­strâ, aut Haeredum Specia­li Licentiâ. Ibid. §. 8. Emperors ( by name) who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies ( given to Ferdinand by him) without the leave and licence of the said Ferdi­nand. Here we see, the Pope gives away al­most half the World, from the true Owners, Causa incognita, inaudita, indicta; the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him. If it be said, They were Pagan Idolaters: Grant that. Yet, 1. What they all were, he neither did, nor could know. 2. If they re­ally were such, (as probably they were) yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ; a Pagan and I­dolater may ( jure naturae) have as just a Tem­poral Right to his Estate, as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time; and yet he Commands them to Matth. 22. 21. give to Caesar the things which were Caesars. Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety, and to which he had a right, and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute, and other things Rom. 13. 7. The Apostle commands the Romans to pay tribute to whom it was due, that is, to Caesar; for to him only they were Subjects, and to him only Tribute was due from them. Our blessed Saviour (as man, born in the Roman Em­pire) was subject to Cae­sar, and paid him Tri­bute. Matth. 17. 25. And that (as Cajetan and Lu­cas Burgensis on that place, truly say; That he paid that Tribute, not de facto only, but de de­bito.due to him. But I hope this will not be deny'd: For if none, but pious men, and true [Page 169] Christians have any just Right to what they possess, it will (I fear) go hard with his Holy­ness, and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony, or any other thing he does possess. And therefore (if he Impartially consider it) he may find some reason, if not for Truths sake (which with him is not always a prevailing Motive) yet for his own, to be (in this) of my opinion: By the Premisses, I hope it may, and does appear, That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God, or worshipped; and so re­ally has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast, that Man of Sin, and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture.

4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion; many Ex­cellent Persons (both for Learning and Piety) have said as much: and some have given us a Catalogue of their Vide Testimonia ex variis Authoribus Col­lecta Romam Babylona es­se, Ejúsque Episcopum jure Antichristum dici; per Simon. Schardium, in cal­ce Epistolarum Petri de Vincis. Basil. [...]566. Testimonies. I shall say nothing of the Fathers; many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation, some of them I have Cited before, and Schardius (in the Place last Quoted) has more. Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists, or the Reformed Churches since Lu­ther; who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist; especial­ly the Church of England, as appears, both by her ablest Writers, and her Authentick See the third part of the Homily of Good Works; in the first part of the Homilies, p. 38. and the sixth part of the Homily against Rebel­lion, in the second part of the Homilies, p. 316. where the Pope is call'd the Babylonical Beast of Rome. Ho­milies, confirmed by the Kings Supream Au­thority in Convocations and Parliaments. O­mitting all these (which yet were abundantly [Page 170] sufficient to shew, that I am not singular in this Opinion) I shall only (of very many more) give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communi­on of the Church of Rome. And here

1. The Emperor Frederick the Second, in a Letter to the King of France, complaining of the Pro­digious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope, and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire, and ruin him; he says, That he Indeavour'd to build the Novissime ad Sup­plantationem nostram a­spirans, ut adversus Da­vid, turrem Construeret Babylonis, &c. Apud Pet. de. de Vincis, Epist. Lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 129. Tower of Babylon against him. And that we may know what and whom he meant by Babylon, in another Epistle to the King and No­bility of France; he Complains of the horrid Injuries and Injustice done him by the Pope and his Party; he calls them Videte Orbis ge­nerale Scandalum, dissi­dia gentium, generale justitiae doleatis Excidi­um, exeunte Nequitia A Senioribus Babylonis, qui populum hactenus Regere videbantur, &c. Apud e­undem, lib. 1. cap. 21. pag. 152. the Elders of Babylon, &c.

2. A faithful Historian (speaking of Pope Hilde­brand, or Gregory the Seaventh, and his Prodi­gious Tyranny and Impiety) tells us, Plerique tum pri­vatim, tum Publicè indig­num facinus clamitant, Pro Concione Gregorio Maledicunt, Hildebrando male precantur; ipsum An­tichristum esse praedicaent, Titulo Christi, negotium Antichristi agitat; in Ba­bylonia, in Temple Dei Se­det; super Omne id quod colitur, extollitur; quasi Deus sit, &c. Joh. Aven­tinus Annal. Bojor. lib. 5. p. 352. Basil. 1615. vide plura Ibid. p. 363. That in those times, Most Men, both Privately and Pub­lickly, curs'd Hildebrand, call'd him Antichrist: that under the Name and Title of Christ, he did the work of Antichrist; that he sat in Babylon, in the Temple of God; and (as if he had been a God) Exalted himself above all that is worshipped, &c. And much more to the same purpose; a­bundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times, who were neither Lutherans, nor (by the [Page 171] Roman Church) then reputed Hereticks. And afterward (speaking of the same Hildebrand) we are told— Hildebrandus an­te Annos. 170. primus specie Religionis Anti­christi Imperij fundamen­ta jecit. Hoc bellun ne­fandum primus auspicatus est, quod per Successores huc usque continuatur—Flamines illi ( Papas Rom. Intelligit) Babyloniae Soli regnare cupiunt: ferre pa­rem non possunt, in Tem­plo Dei Sedeant, Extol­lantur supra omne id quod Colitur: Ingentia loqui­tur perditus homo ille, quasi Deus esset, &c. Aventine Ibid. lib. 7. pag. 420. 421. Vide plura ibidem pag. 444. That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaven­ty years before that time (when that was said) un­der a colour and shew of Religion; He begun the War with the Emperor, which his Successors conti­nued to that Day, (till the time of Friderick the Second, and Pope Gregory the Ninth) where we have many things more, concerning the Prodigious Pride, Impiety, and Tyranny of the Pope, to prove that he was Antichrist. The same Historian also tells us; That almost All Good, Just, and Plerique Omnes Boni, justi, ingenui, sim­plices, tum Imperium An­tichristi coepisse, quod ea quae Christus tot Annos Ante nobis Cantavit, evenisse cernebant, memoriae Literarum prodidere. Joh. Aventinus, Ibidem, lib. 5. pag. 363. Edit. 1615. & Edit. 1580. pag. 470. And the Learned Marcus Ephesius in the Council of Florence, call'd Rome Babylon. Binius Concil. Tom. 8. pag. 980. Edit. Paris. 1636. Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World, that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time, (the time of Hildebrand he means) because they Saw those things then come to pass, which were foretold long before.

3. But this is not all. We have further Testimo­nies of this Truth. 1. Robert Grosthead, who (both for Learning and Piety) was Inferior to none in his Age: He (on his Death-bed) ha­ving spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome, and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice; he adds— Episcopus deleus de jacturâ Animarum per Pa­palis Curiae Avaritiam, su­spirans ait: Christus deve­nit, ut animas Lucraretur. Ergo, qui animas perdere non formidas, nonne Anti­christus merito dicendus est? Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Ann. 1253. p. 875. Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist? Is not a Destroyer of Souls (the Pope he means) an Nonne ergo Ani­marum destructor inimicus Dei & Antichristus cen­setur? Ibidem. Enemy of God and Antichrist? And after a [Page 172] long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties, he calls Rome Egypt; (so Saint John calls it Rev. 11. 8. Spiritually Sodom and Egypt) and concludes that the Ibid. p. 876. Edit. Watsij. Nec Liberabitur Ecclesia ab Aegyptia ser­vitute, nisi in ore Gladij Cruentati. Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude, but by the Sword. 2. Nor is this all: we have great Councils of whole Nations, in their Publick Edicts and Constitu­tions, expresly declaring the Pope, to be that Antichrist, who Exalts himself above all that is called God. We have a Publick Edict, published by Ludovicus Bavarus Emperor, and his Coun­sel; wherein Pope John the Two and twentieth is call'd Quise Mystas Chri­sti ferunt, sunt Nuncij An­tichristi—Nec per hunc Antichristum, licet Christianis pac [...]m à Deo datam servare. Joh. Aven­tinus Annal. Bojorum, lib. 7. pag. 469. Editionis Basil. 1615. Antichrist, the Disturber of the Peace of Christendom, and the Bishops and Clergy who ad­hered to him, Messingers of Antichrist. And not long after, the same Emperor, in a Diet or Counsel of the Bishops and Nobility of Germa­ny and Italy too, and with their joynt Consent, publishes an Edict, in the Year 1328. wherein we have a long Catalogue of the Prodigious Impieties and Tyranny of the Pope, and then and there they call him— Sicuti Pastor est Personatus, ita Mysticus est Antichristus. Ibidem, p. 473. vid. Epist. Eccle­siae Leodiensis ad Pas­chal. 2. apud Binium, Tom. 7. part. 2. p. 518. A Personated Pa­stor, (one who would seem to be a Pastor of the Church) but was indeed, That Mystical Antichrist. And in the same great Counsel, they publish a­nother Imperial Decree or Constitution, where­in having set down that Character of In Temlo Dei, hoc est, Ecclesiâ, quasi Deus, Sedebunt, & super Omne illud quod usquam Gentium, aut Colitur, aut cultum est, extollentur. Dominatio­nem, Vrbi orbique Terra­rum, rejecta Cruce Christi, arripient, &c. Anti­christ, That he should Exalt himself above all that is called God, or worshipped, and assume a Power and Domination over the whole World: They add, That by many Quae ideo vates ve­ridici, Nobis ante Conta­runt, verissima esse experi­mentis animadvertimus; & nisi planè Asini simus, Sentimus, &c. Experiments, they saw these Predictions, come to pass, and ( unless [Page 173] they were as stupid as Asses) they must be sensible of them; And then Qui contra obstre­pere ausit, tanquam Rei­publ. hostis, inimicus Pie­taetis & Satelles Antichri­sti, ultimo Supplicio Parri­cidium luet. Conditum est hoc Decretum. Ann. 1338. Extat apud Aven­tinum, Annal. Lib. 7. p. 479. Declare, That all who adhere to, and follow the Pope, are Antichristians, and He Antichrist. I know that the Roman The Portugal In­dex Expurgatorius. Oly­sipone, 1624. pag. 29. damns Aventine, in Ge­neral only. But the Spa­nish Index Expurgat. Madriti, 1612. & p. 449. and at Madrid, 1667. p. 562. Col. 2. sets down particularly, all the pas­sages to be Expunged. Inquisitors have call'd Aventine, Author damatus, an Author damn'd by them; and have noted all these places, I have Cited, to be Expunged; (I have the Inquisitors own Book, wherein all the Places in Aventine are to that purpose, Vncis inclusi, and to be left out in all following Editions of Aventine). But the World knows, that they have (with great Impieties and Im­pudence) corrupted thousands of Authors, put­ting out whatever makes against their Errors, and putting in, what makes the Author say, what he never meant. But their damnation of what Aventine says, out of the Imperial Con­stitutions, is no refutation of it; nor are those things untrue because they would have them Expunged: as the Second Commandment is no less Divine, and a part of the Decalogue, because they leave it out. But enough of this; The Case is too plain, to need more proof.

But some say, Dubium. That Antichrist is not yet come; nor will come till towards the end of the World. And Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 1. Bel­larmin says, That this is the Opinion of Catholicks. And some Learned Protestants (as Grotius and Doctor Hammond) say, That Antichrist is both come, and gone, 1600. years ago. For Caius Caligula ( Grotius his Antichrist) died Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. Anno Christi, 43. And Simon Magus (who by Dr. Hammond is supposed to be Antichrist) died Item Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. §. 16. 17. Anno Christi, 68. So [Page 174] that both Caius and Simon Magus, (who are their supposed Antichrists) are dead above a thousand six hundred years ago. Whence it will follow, That the Pope neither is, nor ever was, or can be Antichrist. For if either Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus were then, when they lived, Anti­christ, then the Pope was not; (neither of them being Bishop of Rome) and both of them being (so many Ages since) dead; the Pope neither is, nor ever can be Antichrist, unless you will have two great Antichrists; which no man yet ever did, or (with any Reason or Sense) can say.

In Answer to this, Sol. 1. I shall say a few things: And, 1. For Bellarmine (who says, That the Catholick O­pinion is, That Antichrist is not yet come) I confess he, and all his Party are highly concern'd to say so. For if Antichrist be Actually come, then the Pope must be that Man of Sin; He (and none in the World but he) having all the Characters and Marks of Antichrist mention'd in Scripture, so plain, that he who runs may read them. 2. Though Bellarmine say, 'Tis the Catholick Opinion, that An­tichrist is not yet come; yet it evidently appears (by the many Authentick Testimonies before Cited, and the Authors were Papists) That Antichrist is come Six hundred years ago, and that the Pope was he, Plerique Omnes Boni, &c. (says the Histo­rian before Cited) Most Good Men believed Rome to be Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. 3. Bellar­mine Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. Lib. 3. cap. 3. §. Refert. B. Augustinus.Cites one, (and he Bishop of Florence) whose Concilium Floren­tinum, Episcopornm 340. Praeside Paschal. 2. contra Fluentinum illius Loci E­piscopum, qui Motus Quo­tidianis Portentis, quae tunc Accidebant, dicebat jam tum natum esse Anti­christum. Genebrard. Chron. Lib. 4. ad Annum 1105. p. 355. Opinion was, That Antichrist was then [Page 175] come, (almost Since that Council wherein he was censu­red, (Ann. 1105.) are 574 years pass'd. Six hundred years ago) and was severely rebuked for it by Pope Paschal the Second, in a Synod call'd by him at Florence. But Bellar­mine might have named Five hundred more, (which he wisely conceal'd, because they were a­gainst him; and he neither had, nor could have any just Answer to so many, and so evident Te­stimonies) I shall only add (besides those before mention'd) one signal Testimony more, to shew, That even at Rome it self, it was believ'd, that An­tichrist should come in the end of the Tenth Cen­tury. I have seen (and the Book, if any desire it, is still to be In Bodley's Libra­ry in Oxon. Cod. 76, su­per D. Arts. The MS. was given to St. Peter's Church in Excester, in Edward the Confessor's time, by Leofricke; first Bishop of Exon, as ap­pears by his own hand, in the beginning of that Manuscript. seen) a very Ancient and Excel­lent MS. Missal, belonging anciently to the Church and City of Rome, (for there are some particular Services in it, to be said in some of the chief Churches in Rome) In this MS. Missal, in the beginning of it, there is a Chronological Ta­ble, in which (amongst other things) we are told, That à Christo ad Antichristum sunt Anni. 999. So that it was believ'd then at Rome, that Antichrist should come in the last year of the tenth Century: and if he did so, (and so it was believed then) Syl­vester the Second (a Prodigious Malis Artibus Pontificatum adeptus est—Ambitione & Diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate Im­pulsus, Archiepiscopatum Rhemensem, dein Raven­natem, postremò Pontifica­tum, Adjuvante Diabolo, consecutus. And a little before, Relicto Monaste­rio. Diabolum secutus, cui se Totum tradiderit, &c. Plat. in vitâ Sylvest. 2. See the Hist. of Magick by Gabr. Nandaeus, c. 19. pag. 255. & Johan. Stella de vitis Pontificum, (opus revisum & correctum sub Julio. 2. as we are told in the last page save one) Basil. 1507. in vita Silve­stri. 2. Villain was then Pope, who was a famous (or rather infamous) Magician, and obtain'd the Popedom by the help of the Devil, as their own Platina, and Johan. Stella tell us. I know their Writers and the Popes Parasites since Luther, do (but without any just reason) question the truth of what Platina, Stella, and o­thers more ancient have said of this Sylvester; so In Annotat. ad vit. Silvest. 2. apud Plat. Edit. 1626. Onuphrius, Papirius In vitâ Silvest. 2. Massonus, and others; [Page 176] who against Truth, and the Faith of all former Historians, indeavour ( Aethiopen lavare) to quit Sylvester of all these Crimes, and make him (what he was not) an Excellent Person.

2. For Grot. in 2. Thess. 2. 4. 5. Grotius, who would have Caius Ca­ligula to be Antichrist, and Dr. Hammond, who thinks, that Simon Dr. Hammond on the same place, and more largely, contra D. B [...]on­dellum Dissert. 1. Pro­oemialis. De Antechristo. Magus and his Gnosticks bet­ter deserv'd that Name: I confess they were very Learned and Worthy men, but men; and had (as the best have) their Errors. Optimus ille non qui nullis, sed minimis urgetur. Certainly it is as law­ful for me (and not more immodestly) to contra­dict them, as it was for them to contradict all (Ancient and Modern) who ever writ on those Passages in the Second to the Thessalonians, con­concerning Antichrist. I had, and have great respect and reverence for their Persons, and Me­mory, but more for Truth; and therefore, the Apology of Aristotle (concerning the Errors of his Master Plato) may, and shall be mine. Amicus Plato, [...]. He (whoever he be) who out of Reverence and Respect to any men (how great soever) either imbraces, or (when he knows them) conceals their Errors, wants Charity to himself, and others; who possibly (if he had not conceal'd them) might have avoided those Errors, and gain'd the knowledge of Truth. In short then, I consider

1. That it is evident in the Apostle, that Anti­christ was not come when St. Paul writ that E­pistle; for he tells them, 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. That an Apostacy must first come, and that which hindred the Appear­ing [Page 177] of Antichrist, must be taken out of the way, (neither of which was done, when he writ that Epistle) Grotius saw this, and therefore (un­less he would Contradict Truth and the Apo­stle) he could not make Caius Antichrist, unless the Epistle were so dated, that it was writ be­fore Caius appear'd. For this purpose, he tells us, That Paul writ the Epistle, Anno Secundum Com­putum Dionysij vulgat. 38. sed Ann. Christ. 40. secundum verum Com­putum. Collegi (inquit Grotius) scriptam hanc Epistolam Anno Altero Caiani Principatus. Groti­us in Prologo ad 2. ad Thess. Christi, 38. or, 40. in the Second year of Caius Caligula; and (he says) that although Caius was Emperor before St. Paul writ this Epistle, yet his Impiety did not appear till afterwards; He in the beginning of his Reign carrying himself like a good Prince. So that the main Hinge on which Grotius his Opinion turns, is this date of Paul's Epistle: For if it was not writ before Caius appeared, (or the year, 40.) then 'tis evident that Caius cannot be Antichrist, nor Grotius his Hypothe­sis true. Now that this Epistle was writ in the Second year of Caius Caligula (which Grotius affirms) is so far from being true, that (by the Judgment and Consent of the most Learned Chronologers (Papists and Protestants) it was writ at least Seaven or Eight years after Caius was dead. Such, I mean, as the late Lord Pri­mate of Ireland Dr. Usserius Annal. Part. posteriori. Aetat. Mundi. 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 667. in which year he says, and proves this E­pistle to be writ. Vsher, Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 53. §. 1. p. 408. In which year he says this Epistle was writ. Baronius, Ed. Simpson Chro­nici Cathol. part. 7. ad Ann. 51. p. 36. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. scrip­tam putat. Simpson, Corn. A Lapide in Argumento ad. 2. ad Thess. & in Chronolaxi Actuum Apostolorum ad Ann. Christ. 53. pag. 4. quo Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. esse Scriptam asse­rit. A Lapide, Calvisius ad Ann. Christ. 50. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. scriptain vult. Calvisius, &c. all of which Authors (and many more) say, and prove, that it could not be writ before the year of Christ, 50. and some of them, that it was writ Anno Christi, 53. or, 54. So that the Learned Primate of Ireland (Second to none in [Page 178] Exactness in Chronology) speaking of Grotius his date of this Epistle, says, Annal. part. poste­riori, Aetate Mund. 7. ad Ann. Christ. 54. p. 668. Toto Coelo erravit Grotius, cum hanc Epistolam sub Caio exaratam existima­bat. That Grotius erred exceedingly, when he said this Epistle was writ in the time of Caius Caligula. 2. But that it may evidently appear, that St. Paul did not write this Second Epistle to the Thessalonians Anno Christi. 40. (as Grotius says) but at least Ten or Eleven years after; let it be consider'd, 1. That it is a received Truth, that Paul was Converted Anno Christi. 34. 2. 'Tis certain in the Text, that Paul had been at 1 Thess. 1. 5. Thess alonica, before he writ his First Epistle to them. The Query then will be, When he came to Thessalo­nica: For if he had not been there, before the year 40. Grotius his Hypothesis will be evident­ly untrue. And that he was not, will appear from that Account Scripture gives of him, af­ter his Conversion; Thus, 1. He himself tells us, that immediately after his Conversion, he Gal. 1. 17.went into Arabia, and returned to Damas­cus; And then Gal. 1. 18. after three years, he went to Jerusalem (which was Anno Christ. 37. and Gal. 2. 1.fourteen years after, he and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem ( Anno Christ. 51.) 2. He and Barnabas (sent from Antioch) went to Jerusalem, and were at the Act. 15. 2. Council of the Apostles there; which Council was held, Anno Christ. 47. says Chron. Catholici, part. 7. ad Ann. 47. p. 34. Simpson; Ann. 48. as the Centur. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 420. Magdebur­genses think; Ann. 50. says Theatro Hist. ad dictum Annum. Helvicus; Ann. 51. so Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. Baronius, Chronol ad dictū Annum. p. 93. Funccius, In Chronotaxi, ad Ann 51. A Lapide, In Chronot sua ad dictum Annum. Bellarmine, &c. Anno Christ. 52. says Usserius Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 52. pag. 660. Archbishop Vsher. Now let the Council be [Page 179] held which of these years you please, it will ut­terly overthrow Grotius his Hypothesis. For, 3. It is evident in the Text, that Paul at the time of that Synod, had not been at Thessalonica, and so had writ no Epistle to them; seeing he says, 1. Thess. 1. 5. that he had been with them before he writ his First Epistle. That he had not been at Thessalonica at or before the time of the Coun­cil, appears by what Luke says of him after the Synod: who tells us, that he went to Act. 15. 30. Anti­och; then through Ibid. vers. 41. Syria and Cilicia; then to Act. 16. 1. 2. Derbe and Lystra, Circumcised Timothy, and took him along with him. Then he went through Ibid. vers. 6. Phrigia, Galatia, and Mysia, and so to Troas. And (in a Vision) being call'd to Ibid. vers. 11. 12. Macedonia, he went to Neapolis and Philippi: and having pass'd through Amphipolis and Apol­lonia, he came to Act. 17. 1. Thessalonica (the first time he ever was there; but, as yet, had never writ to them. Thence he went to Ibid. vers. 10. Berea, Ibid. vers. 15. A­thens, and Act. 18. 1. Corinth; At Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla (banish'd from Rome, as all Jews were, by Claudius) came to him: and this was the Ninth year of Claudius, (that is, Anno Christ. 51.) as Josephus, Orosius, Baronius, and all Chronolo­gers testifie, as a very Learned Orosium secuti sunt Omnes deinceps Chrono­graphi; & Baronius, &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. Lib. 2. Eusebij. p 37. Historian tells me: And he himself confesses, that Paul came into Greece Paulus Anno de­mum Claudij. 9. venit in Graeciam. Ibid. Col. 2. B. Anno Claudij. 9. that is, Anno Christ. 51. And yet Paul had writ no Epistle to the Thessalonians, till Timothy (whom he left at Thessalonica) came to him into 1. Thessal. 3. 2. 6. vide Hen. Holden The­olog. Parisiensem in Ta­bula Gestorum Pauli, in Calce N. Test. à se, cum Arnotat. Edit. Paris. 1660. p. 883. 884. ubi haec Omnia firmat. Greece, (as he himself tells us) so that by the Premisses, I [Page 180] think it may, and does appear, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, was not only writ after the Synod of the Apostles, Act. 15. but af­ter Paul had pass'd through and preach'd in all those Countries before mention'd, after he had been at Thessalonica, left Timothy there, came into Greece, met Aquila and Priscilla come from Rome, (which was Anno Christ. 51.) and Timothy was returned to him; then (and not till then) he writ his First Epistle to the Thessalonians; and therefore it is impossible Caius Caligula should be Antichrist; who was not come (as 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. St. Paul tells us) when he writ his Second Epistle, who yet was come and dead, at least Seaven or Eight years before he writ the first. 3. And Dr. Hammond confirms what I have said; who grants, that the Second Epistle to the Dr. Hammond in the Prologue to his An­notat. on the Second to the Thessalonians. Thessalonians was writ Anno Christ. 51. which was at least Seaven or Eight years after Caius ( Grotius his Antichrist) was Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 43. §. 1. In which year 'tis certain Caius died.dead and gone. So that (by Dr. Hammond An­not. p. 718. Col. 2. ex Pro­fesso proves that Caius could not be Antichrist. Dr. Ham­mond's Principles) Gretius his Hypothesis is ut­terly overthrown, and Caius the Emperor can­not possibly be that Antichrist St. Paul speaks of; who was not come, when he writ that E­pistle.

2. And by the same. Principles, Dr. Hammond has evidently Confuted his own Opinion, and Ex­cluded Simon Magus from all possibility of be­ing Antichrist. For that Doctor expresly af­firms two things; 1. That the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, was writ, in the year of [Page 181] our blessed Saviour, 51. 2. That then Anti­christ (when that Epistle was writ) was not come or reveal'd: which two things being granted, (as they must, for the Doctor says the one, and the Apostle the other) it evident­ly follows, that Simon Magus neither was, nor could be that Antichrist the Apostle speaks of in that Epistle. For it is certain, that Simon Ma­gus was come, and his Heresie and Prodigious Impiety discovered many years before. For, 1. It is certain, that when Peter and John were sent to Act. 8. Samaria, they met Simon Magus there; who though he had been Ibid. vers. 13. baptiz'd by Philip the Deacon, was no better for it, and Impiously offer'd Vers. 18. Money to purchase Pow­er to give the Holy Ghost; Peter (cursing both They Money perish with thee, vers. 20.him and his Money) told him, That he was in the Ibid. vers. 23. Gall of Bitterness, and the Bond of Ini­quity. 2. Now this was done, in the year of our blessed Saviour Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 9. Ita etiam Hen. Holden, Dr. Theol. in Tabulâ Gestorum Petri, in Cal­ce N. Test. cum Annot. suis Edit. Paris. 1660. p. 881. 35. which was Fifteen or Sixteen years before, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was writ, or Antichrist come and revealed, (according to Dr. Hammond's own Computation) And therefore it is impos­sible that Simon Magus should be that Anti­christ, the Apostle speaks of. For that from the year. 35. till after. 51. (for Sixteen years together) he should not discover, but conceal his Impiety, (who was a Magician and an Im­pious Villain before, and then declared by Peter, to be in the Gall of Bitterness, and Bond of Iniquity) is utterly Incredible. Sure [Page 182] I am, that Magus cum inde recessissent Apostoli, contra eos obniti, corúmque Do­ctrinae adversari non dubi­tarct: & qui olim Sama­ritas dementarat, Judaeos iisdem Artibus aggressus, quos Apostolis Insensos videat, se esse Dei Filium, illis Suadere Conatus est. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 20. Baronius and [...] &c. I­táque hinc Simon Magus aemulatione percitus, contra Apostolos, corúmque Do­ctrinam se Armavit. Ni­cephor. Histor. Eccles. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 141. Nicephorus, (to name no more) tell us, That after the Apostles were gone from Samaria, Simon Magus set him­self against our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, (whom he thought only better Conjurers then himself) and by his Magick and Diabolical Arts seduced many Samaritans and Jews, and made them believe that he was the Son of God, &c. So far was he from Concealing his Impie­ty, till after the writing of that Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the year. 51. That by all the Magick and Malice he had, he publickly seduc'd both Jews and Gentiles, long before that time; and so could not be that great Antichrist St. Paul speaks of. 2. But I neither shall, nor need bring any further proof of this Particular, (that Simon Magus had before the year. 51. dis­covered himself to be an Adversary to our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles and Christia­nity) because Dr. Hammond himself (though in Contradiction and Evident Confutation of his own Hypothesis) doth both Confess, and ex professo, prove it. For he tells us— Dr. Hammond in his Annotat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. Lit. E. p. 719. Col. 1. That af­ter he was baptiz'd, Act. 8. he went on in his way of deceiving the People by Sorceries, as appears, by his desiring to buy the Power of working Miracles from the Apostles, and being deny'd that, Soon after he set up, and opposed himself against Christ, and accordingly is here call'd [...], the Adver­sary, &c. where Dr. Hammond tells us, That soon after Simon' s being with the Apostles at Samaria, he discovered himself to be an Adversary to Christ, [Page 183] our blessed Saviour. Now 'tis certain, that his meeting the Apostles at Samaria, was Anno Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 35. §. 9. Christ. 35. and so (by Dr. Hammond's Compu­tation, who says that Epistle (the Second to the Thessalonians) was writ Ann. 51. that is, Fifteen or Sixteen years before Antichrist came, and therefore it is impossible Simon should be that Antichrist Paul speaks of, who was not come when he writ that Epistle, unless you will say, (which is highly irrational) that Antichrist came Fifteen or Sixteen years, before St. Paul says he was to come. 3. Nor is this all; for the same Learned and Reverend Dr. Hammond An­notat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. li­terad. p. 718. Col. 2. Doctor tells us, out of Eusebius Hist. Ec­clesiast. lib. 2. cap. 12. In the Latin; but, 13. in the Greek. Eusebius; That Simon Magus came to Rome, in the Beginning of Claudius his Reign; where he did such Miracles by the help of the Devil, that he was taken for a God, and had a Statue e­rected for him. And almost all the Samiritans, and some of other Nations confess'd him to be the first and principal God, and worshipped him with all sorts of Sacrifices, &c. These are his words; by which it is Evident (in the Doctors Opini­on) that Simon was at Rome, In the Beginning of Claudius his Reign, and sufficiently revealed to be an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and the Gospel, and prevailed so far, that (as Hierome De Scri­ptor. Eccles. in Petro. Hie­rome tells us) Peter went to Rome, Anno Claudij. 2. (which was Anno Christ. 44.) to oppose Simon and defend the Gospel. Now all know, that Claudius began his Reign, Anno Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. Christ. 43. which was at least Seaven or Eight years (in Dr. Hammond's own Computation) before the [Page 184] Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was writ, or Antichrist come; And therefore Simon Magus could not be that Antichrist Paul speaks of, who was not come or reveal'd, when that Epi­stle was writ; whereas Simon was both come and reveal'd some years before.

3. Many things are said of Antichrist in Scripture, which cannot be applied to Caius, or Simon Ma­gus, with any truth or probability. 1. Anti­christ was (by usurpation) to have a Supream Power and Authority, (as our Vide Hen Holden. Dr. Parisiens. in cap. 13. vers. 1. Apoc. vidi Besti­am; i. e. Antichristum, ha­bentem Cap. 7. i. e. Autho­ritatem Supremam, & Cor­nua. 10. id est, potestatem Maximam. Vid. Grotium in dictum locum. Adversaries confess) and should make war with, and perse­cute the Servants of Christ, and (as to killing the Body) overcome Apoc. 13. 7. them, till he was drunk Apoc. 17. 6. [...]ith the Blood of the Saints. This neither Caius nor Simon Magus did. Caius (though he had a Supream Power) was no persecutor of Christians; much less so far, as to be drunk with their Blood. Nero Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 25. [...], &c. Nero Rom. Imperat. primus Hostis, &c. Ita Tertullianus— Neronem primum in sectam nostram gladio ferocisse. Euseb. in Chronico ad Ann. Christ. 70. was the first Roman Emperor who persecuted Christians; three and twenty years after Caius Caius died Anno Christ. 43. and the first Persecution under Nero was Anno Christ. 66. Ba­ronius Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. & ad Ann. 66. §. 9. was deed: And as for Simon Magus (a despicable and beggarly Magician) he never had any Power of the Sword, nor ever did, or could make War a­gainst the Christians, much less overcome them, and be drunk with their blood. 2. But (that I may not trouble the Reader, nor my self, with any more Particulars) I say (and think it an E­vident Truth) that there is nothing said in Scri­pture, or in the Works of the Fathers, or in any Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, for Six­teen hundred years after our blessed Saviour, [Page 185] from which it may but probably be concluded, that Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus, was that great Antichrist mention'd by St. Paul and St. John; But [...] on the contrary, it does appear both by Scripture and the Consent of Christendom, for Sixteen hundred years, that neither of the two was, or possibly could be that great Antichrist. For,

1. It does appear (by what is above said) that what St. Paul says of Antichrist, 2. Thess. 2. cannot be meant of Caius or Simon Magus; because St. Paul in that place says expresly, that when he writ that Epistle, the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition was not come and reveal'd. And yet that Epistle being writ (as Dr. Hammond Confesseth) Anno Christ. 51. Caius was both come and dead at least Sea­ven or Eight years before the year. 51. and therefore could not possibly be that Anti­christ who was not come till after it. And for Simon Magus, he was (as Dr. Hammond grants and proves) both come and reveal'd as many years (as Caius was dead) before St. Paul writ that Epistle; and consequently before Antichrist was come or revealed. And so he (who was come and reveal'd) could not be that Antichrist, who (as St. Paul assures us) was not then come or re­vealed.

[Page 186] 2. St. Paul elsewhere gives us some Chara­cters of Antichrist, and his Adherents; as 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. men giving heed to seducing spirits, speaking lies in Hypocrisie, forbidding to marry, and com­manding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received, &c. Where I observe, 1. That in the former place, (but now 2. Thess. 2. 3. spoken of) he told the Thessalonians, that an Apostasie must precede the coming of Antichrist; and he tells us, what kind of Apostasie it must be; [...]. 1. Tim. 4. 1. A departing or fal­ling from the Faith. 2. That these two Ma [...]ks of Antichrist (forbidding marriage, and com­manding to abstain from meats) are such as none but the Pope can pretend to; who so severely forbids the marriage of the Clergy (Secular and Regular) that it is a Gravius peccat Sa­cerdos, si matrimonium contrahat, quam si forni­cetur, & domi concubinam foveat. Vid. Costeri En­chiridion, cap. 15. Pro­pos. 9. p. 459. Edit. 1587. greater sin (with them) for a Priest to marry (though God Approves and Commands it) in such as otherwise have not the gift of Conti­nence) then it is for him to commit Fornication, and keep a Concubine. Nay they say, that a Priests marriage is Haereticorum Mi­nistri Sacerdotium Incestis Nuptiis foedant; quae non sunt Nuptiae, sed Pejora Omnibus Adulteriis Sacri­legia. Idem ibid. p. 460. Incestuous, Sacrilegi­ous, and worse then All Adulteries. Nor is this Abominable Doctrine, the Opinion of any private Doctor only, but is approved as Orthodox, by See the Appro­bations of Coster's En­chiridion in the Begin­ning. Edit. Colon. 1587. & Edit. Turnoni, 1591. Where we have, 1. The Approbation of the U­niversity of Mentz; and they say, they had read it diligently; Dignissi­múmque judicasse quod in publicum prodiret, mani­búsque Studiosorum Assi­duè tereretur. 2. The University of Colon: Approbat, Omnibúsque ve­ritatis amantibus Pluri­mum Profuturum testatur. 3. The University of Lo­van:— Dignum judicat, quod adversus pestilentes no­stri Temporis Sectariorum errores, Catholicorum ma­nibus teratur. 4. The Di­vines of Triers:—En­chiridion Costeri, quia & eruditè & Orthodoxè Per Omnia Scriptum, Summa Cum Vtilitate legi possit. several Vniversities. So that in both these [ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats] what God in his Word expresly approves, the Pope condemns; and what God Commands, he Impiously Contradicts; and so evidently [Page 187] proves himself to be, That Man of Sin, who Exalts himself above all that is called God. 3. What the Apostle in this Epistle speaks of the Apostasie and Antichrist which follow­ed, is not of things past or then in being, but of things to come afterwards. For he expresly says— 1. Tim. 4. 1. [...]. That in the Latter Times some should depart from the Faith, &c. Nei­the Apostasie nor Antichrist were then come; but afterwards, in the Latter times, should come. 4. Now he writ this Epistle, as some So Ed. Simpson Chronol. Cathol. Part. 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 37.think, Anno Christ. 54. or as some So Baronius An­nal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 57. Num. 189. so Ger. Mer­cator Atlant. Minoris Arnhemij, 1621. p. 676. In Itinerario Pauli. And so Corn. A Lapide in Chronotaxi, ad Ann. 57. others (and they far more) Ann. 57. or (as the most Exact Jac. Usserius Ar­machanus Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. Christ. 65. pag. 688. Chronologer) Anno Christ. 65.

Now let my Adversaries chuse which Compu­tation they will, for the date and time of writing this Epistle; let it be (if they please) the year 54. which is furthest from Truth, yet most favoura­ble to their Opinion. I say, admit that this first Epistle to Timothy was writ by St. Paul, Ann. 54. yet it will appear by the Premisses, 1. That Anti­christ was not then come, nor revealed, because St. Paul says so. 2. And therefore, that neither Caius nor Simon Magus could be Antichrist; Be­cause Caius was both come and dead ten or eleven years before; and Simon Magus was come, and his Heresie and Impieties revealed (as Dr. Hammond grants and proves) long before that time.

[Page 188] 3. After In his Second to Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. &c. which Epistle was writ, says Ba­ronius, Ann. Christ. 59. Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 59. num. 19. And Arch­bishop Vsher says it was writ Anno Christ. 66. An­nal. Part. 2. ad dictum Annum, p. 691. this, St. Paul speaks of this Apo­stasy from the Faith; but still as of a thing not yet come, but to come in future 2. Tim. 3. 1. times; [...], in the last times; so that if St. Paul say true, that great Aposta­sie (which was to 2. Thess. 2. 3. preceed the coming of Antichrist, was not come when he writ that Epistle, which was (as the Learned Primate of Ireland Dr. Vsher thinks) Anno Christ. 66. or (as Baronius) Anno Christ. 59. And there­fore it is impossible that Caius or Simon Ma­gus should be Antichrist, both come, and their Villanies revealed long before.

4. St. Peter writ his Second Epistle a little be­fore his Martyrdom; for so he himself says — 2. Pet. 1. 14. [...], velox est de­posito tabernaculi mei. Versio Vulgata. Knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle, (or that my death hastens) now an Exact Jac. Usserius Ar­mach. Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 67. p. 691. vide Ly­ranum in Glossa ad Pro­logum Hieron [...]m. in. 7. Epist. Canonicas, & Hi­e [...]onymum, De Illust. Eccles. Doctoribus, c. 1. Chronologer tells me (and proves) that he died Ann. 67. and writ this Idem Usserius ibid. p. 691.Epistle Anno Christ. 66. I do know that some Simpson Chron. Cathol. Part. 7. ad Ann. 67. p. 44. say he writ it Anno Christ. 67. and Baronius says Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. he writ it Anno 69. But, 2. which of those years soever it was writ in, the great Apostasie (which preceeded the coming of Antichrist) was future and after­wards to come. So he himself tell us, 2. Pet. 2. 1. But there were false Prophets among the People, even so ( [...]) there shall be false Teachers a­mong you, who privily shall bring in damna­ble Heresies, &c. These false Prophets and the great Apostasie were (when he writ that Epistle) future and to come. And there­fore [Page 189] 'tis certain Caius or Simon Magus could not be Antichrist. For if it was writ in the year. 66. Caius was come, dead and gone three and twenty years before; and Simon Magus his Heresies and Impieties publickly reveal'd and known, as is afore prov'd, even by Dr. Hammond himself.

5. In the Revelation, St. John does more fully describe Antichrist; That Rev. 13. 1. he rose out of the Sea, with seaven Heads and ten Horns, and on his Horns ten Crowns, &c. That he should make War Rev. 17. 6. with the Saints, overcome them, and be drunk with their blood; That his Seat should be Rev. 17. 18. Rome, mystically, or Rev. 11. 8. spiritually call'd Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon; That ten Rev. 17. 12. 13. Kings should give their Power to that Beast, aid and assist him in his Tyranny and Im­pieties; That those Kings should at last forsake him, and utterly destroy Ibidem vers. 16. 17. him, and burn and utterly destroy Rev. 18. 2. 21. Babylon ( or Rome) his Seat, never to be inhabited any more: Which is such a Description of the great Antichrist, as never can (with any truth or probability) be attributed to Caius Caligula or Simon Magus. 2. But that which here, I more particularly press, is, 1. That St. John in the Revelation speaks of Antichrist, (not as past, or present, but) as future, and yet to come, when he writ that Book (as is evident in the Text, and is, and must be confess'd. 2. And it is as certain, and generally agreed upon, that he writ the Revelation in Rev. 1. 9. Pat­mos [Page 190] (whither he was banish'd by Johannes Apoca­lypsin viderat, pene sub nostro seculo, ad Finem Do­mitiani Imperij. Irenaeus advers. Haeres. l. 5. p. 259. Col. 2. Edit. Erasmi. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 23. where he cites Clemens Alexandr. for the same purpose. So the Acta Martyrij Timothei, apud Photium Biblioth. Cod. 254. p. 1402. 1403. So Orosius Hist. l. 7. c. 10. 11. p. 598. And so Hie­rom, de Doct. Ecclesiae Illust. c. 9. ad Ann. 97. Domiti­an) Anno Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 97. §. 1. Christ. 97. The Premisses be­ing granted, (as they ought and must; be­ing built upon better Authority, then any is, or can be for the contrary, 1. That An­tichrist was future and to come, when St. John writ the Revelation. 2. That he writ it Anno Christ. 97. It will evidently follow, that it was impossible, that either Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus, should be that great The Revelation was writ Anno Christ. 97. Cai­us died Ann. 43. (Baroni­us Annal. Tom. 1. ad An. 43. §. 1.) and so was dead 54. years before Anti­christ came. Antichrist. Caius being dead four and fifty, and Simon Simon Magus died Anno Christ. 68. (Ita Ba­ronius, ex Eusebio, Epi­phanio, &c. Tom. Annal. 1. ad Annum Christ. 68. §. 17. 18.) which was. 29. years before the Revela­tion was writ, or Anti­christ come, if St. John says true. Magus nine and twenty years before St. John writ the Revela­tion, and so before Antichrist was to come. I know that the Reverend Dr. Dr. Hammond in his Premonition to his Annotat. on the Revela­tion, p. 906. & 907. Hammond indeavours to prove, that John was in Pat­mos, and writ the Revelation there in the time, and about the ninth year of Claudius, which was Anno Christ. 51. which was six and forty years before the time I have as­signed for St. Johns being in Patmos, and writing the Revelation. Now for his Opi­nion, Dr. Hammond neither has, nor pre­tends to any Testimony of Antiquity, save only that of Epiphanius Hae­resi. 51. § 12. & 33. Epiphanius; who in that particular is miserably mistaken, (as he is in many more) as is Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum. 99. §. 2. Dionysius Petavius in Notis ad Epiphan. Haeresin. 51. Num. 33. & Baronius Ibid. ad An. 93. §. 9. D. Blondellus de Sybillis, lib. 2. cap. 2. Possevin. in Apparat. verbo Johannes Apostolus, p. 814. &c confess'd and prov'd by Learned men, and they such, who have a due Reverence for the Fathers, and particu­larly [Page 191] for Epiphanius. 2. That St. John should be banish'd, and write the Revelation under Claudius, (which only Dr. Hammond and Grot. in Apoca­lyp. 1. 9. Grotius say (out of Epiphanius) to give some Colour to their new and contra­dictory Hypothesis) is evidently against the concurrent Sense and Testimonies of Anci­ent and Modern Authors. For besides Ire­naeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Acta Martyrij Timothei apud Photium, Hierome, and Orosius (before Cited) Johan. Joh. Malela in Do­mitiano MS. in Biblio­theca Bodleiana Oxon. pag. 161. alias 171. Malela An­tiochenus, Haimo Hist. lib. 3. cap. 15. pag. 55. Haymo, Arethas in Apo­calyps. cap. 1. 9. Arethas, Ado Ado Viennensis in Chronico, ad Annum Christ. 84. apod Lau­rent. de la Barre, p. 493. Vi­ennensis (and many more) constantly say; That John was banish'd into Patmos, not by Claudius, but by Domitian, and writ his Revelation there. 3. But I shall not go about any further proof of this; For Dr. Hammond has saved me the Labour, and confess'd it; For it is certain from the Text, that Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom, before John writ the Revelation; John himself telling us Rev. 2. 13. so, Thou hast not deny'd my faith, when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you. So that 'tis Evident, Antipas had suffer'd Mar­tyrdom before John writ his Revelation. Now Antipas suffer'd, and was slain by Domitian, in the Second Persecution of the Christians, which was Anno Domitiani. 10. Christi. 92. So the Old Roman Martyrologium Romanum ad diem Apr. 11. Martyrology, and Baroni [...]s Annot. ad Martyrologium Ro­man. ad dictum diem A­pril. 11. & Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 93. §. 9. Baronius assures us; and Dr. Dr. Hammond in Annotat. ad Apocal. 2. 13. lit. 1. pag. 927. Col. 1. Hammond confesses it, That Antipas suffer'd Martyrdom under Domitian. Whence it evidently fol­lows, [Page 192] That St. John speaking of Antipas his Martyrdom, as a thing past when he writ his Revelation (and that in Domitian's time) he could not write it in Claudius his time, who was dead Moritur Claudius Ann. Christ. 55. seu 56. Baronius ad An. Christ. 56. §. 42. & Domitianus Imperium adiit Anno Christ. 84. Baronius ad dictum Annum. §. 1. And hence it appears, that Claudius died either 84 55 29 Twenty nine, or, 84 56 28 Twenty eight years before Domitian came to the Empire. eight or nine and twenty years before Domitian came to the Empire. So that Antipas being put to death, in Domitian's time, (as Dr. Hammond affirms) and St. John in the Revelation, mentioning his Mar­tyrdom as a thing past, when he writ; 'tis Evident, that he writ that Book after the death of Antipas, and so in, or after Domitian's time, and not in the time of Claudius.

6. St. John in his first 1 Joh. 2. 18. & cap. 4. 3. Epistle, speaks of An­tichrist as then to come, when he writ that E­pistle. It is the last time (saith he) and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists, &c. Here two things (I conceive) are Evident; 1. That [...], nunc, when St. John writ this Epistle; there were many Antichrists; that is, many Nunc multisunt An­tichristi [...] qui unum illum praecedunt, it érque illi parant: [...]. Oecumenius in 1. Johan. Epistol. [...] p. 573. C. D. So Bede, E­stius, &c. in. 1. Joh. 2. 18. 80 Gagnaeius. Ibid. &c. false Prophets and Hereticks forerunners of Antichrist, who made way for him. 2. And that the great Antichrist, [...] was to [...]. Idem Ibidem. Nunc multi sunt Antichristi; qui Omnes Maximo illi Anti­christo In Finem Secul; Vanturo, qu [...]si suo Capiti, Testimonium creddunt. Be­da in. 1. Joh. 2. 18. come, when St. John writ. This Oecumenius, Bede, Estius, and generally all Commentators (Ancient and Modern, Prote­stant and Papist) which I have yet met with, constantly affirm. 'Tis true, that when St. John says 1. Joh. 4. 3. [...]. afterward, that Antichrist was Now in the World already: they truly Explain it, that the meaning is, That he is now in the [Page 193] World; Not Jam in Mund, est; [...]. Oecu­menius Ibidem [...], p. 587. D. personally, but in respect to his Forerunners (false Prophets and Hereticks) who make way for him. I take it then for a cer­tain truth, that when St. John writ this Epi­stle, [...] The Antichrist, or (as Ve­nerable Bede calls him) Maximus ille Anti­christus, was future, and to come. And (which is something strange) Grotius confirms what I have said (which makes much for mine, but little for his purpose) For, 1. He grants, that this Text (1. Joh. 2. 18.) speaks of Vide Grotium in 1. Joh. 2. 18. Antichrist, as future, and to come. For though the word here (and cap. 4. vers. 3.) be [...]; in the Present Tense, yet Grotius con­fesses, that it must be taken in the [...], est sono praesens, sensu futurum. Grotius in 1. Joh. 4. 3. future; Veniet Antichristus, Antichrist will come. 2. He says, that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of, there shall be one Inter Antichristos, unus futurus erat Caeteris Eminentior, ad quem Lo­cus. 1. Joh. 4. 3. pertinet, is vero non alius fuit quam Barchochebas. Grotius in 1. Joh. 2. 18. more Eminent, which he says was Barcoche­bas, who appeared not (he says) till the Empe­ror Adrian' s time (which was Apparuit Barcho­chebas Ann. Christ. 130. Adrian. 11. apud Baro­nium, Annal. Tom. 2. ad Ann. 130. Num. 4. 5. long after St. John writ this Epistle). And he further says, (in Confirmation of what is aforesaid) Grotius in. 1. Joh. 4. 3. Talis Prophetia (he speaks of the Propheties of false Christs, and Prophets) viam struit Magno Ipsi & Eximio An­tichristo. That the false Christs, Hereticks, and false Pro­phets, (which John calls Antichrists) do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist.

I take it then for certain, (and confess'd by Gro­tius) that the great Antichrist was not come, when St. John writ this Epistle. The next thing to be in­quired after, is, When this Epistle was writ; for if it was writ after Caius Caligula, and Simon Magus were dead, then it will be undeniably Evident, [Page 194] that neither of them could be that great Antichrist, of whom St. John speaks; who (when he writ this Epistle) was future, and to come. Now here it is to be considered,

1. That 'tis a common and received Opinion a­mongst Learned men, that St. John writ this Epistle Anno So Baronius An­nal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christ. 99. Num. 7. Bart. Gavantus Comment. in Rubricas, Breviarij Rom. Sect. 5. p. 84. Christ. 99. or at least after Johannes vero nul­lum post Evangelium & E­pistolas Scripsit; Scilicet post mortem Domitiani; quia reversus de Exilio invenit Ecclesiam per Haereticos perturbatam, & tunc, Scri­psit Evangelium & Episto­las contra Ipsos. Lyranus in Glossa ad Prologum Hieronymi in septem E­pist. Canonicas. the death of Domitian (which was Anno Christ. 95.) So Baronius, Gavantus, Lyranus, (in the places cited) and many others. Now if this Compu­tation be true, (as in the Opinion of very ma­ny Learned men it is) then Grotius his Antichrist (the Emperor Caius Caligula, who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seaven and fifty years be­fore John writ this Epistle; and therefore sea­ven and fifty years before Antichrist came; for St. John says, he was future, and to come when he writ. And for Simon Magus (Dr. Hammond's Antichrist) it is Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. Num. 16. 17. &c. certain, he died Anno Christi 68. and so One and thirty years before Anti­christ was come.

2. But be this as it will; I shall not ( though I might) stand upon it; but take the Computation which both [...]uto Scriptam hanc Epistolam non multo ante Excidium Hierosolymorum. Grotius Annot. in. 1. Johannis, In Principio. Grotius, and Dr. This Epistle seems to have been writ A Little Before the great destru­ction which befell the Jews, &c. Dr. Hammond in his Prologue to his Annot. on the first of John. Hammond ap­prove; for they both agree in this, that St. John writ this Epistle a little before the destruction of Jerusalem; and (in the places cited) indea­vour to prove it. 2. This being granted; it is further certain, that the Excidium Hierosoly­morum, was in the second year of Vespasian; that is, Anno Christ. 72. That this is so, Josephus de Bello Judaico, lib. 7. cap. 47. p. 969. Josephus, Eusebius in Chro­nico ad Ann. 72. Eusebius, Usserius Annal. part. 2. p. 698. Jac. Vsserius Armachanus, Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 72. Num. 20. [Page 195] Baronius, &c. assure us. 3. And hence it evi­dently follows, That both Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead before the year. 72. when Antichrist (as St. John assures us) was not come. Caligula being dead thirty, and Si­mon Magus four years before that time.

By the Premisses (I believe) it may, and does ap­pear, that in Scripture, Antichrist (the great Anti­christ) is never spoken of, but as future and to come: and therefore it is impossible by Scripture, (and there is no other Medium can do it) to prove that Antichrist was come, in any part of that time in which Scripture was writ. 2. And as the Apostles believed and writ, that in their times, (even in St. John's, who lived Hierom. de Illust. Eccles. Doctoribus, c. [...]. says St. John liv'd. 68. years after the Passion of our blessed Saviour, to which if we add. 34. (the year of the Passion) it will appear that St. Joh. died Anno Christ. 102. Trajan. 2. vel. 3. longest) Antichrist was not come. So the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers after them, for about a thousand years generally, (if not universally) speak of Antichrist as still fu­ture, and (in their several times) to come. I know that some Vid. Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 70. Num. 3. 4. ex Augustino, De Civitate Dei, lib. 20. c. 19. where he says, That by those words (2. Thess. 2. 7.) Mysterium Iniquitatis jam operatur; Neronem volue­rit Intelligi: cujus jam fa­cta velut Antichristi vide­bantur. So Athanasius tells us, that Constantius (the Arian Emperor) acted all those things, which are spoken of Antichrist, but was not that Anti­christ spoken of in Scrip­ture, (for he was future, and to come, says Atha­nasius) Quid Igitur Hic (Constantius) Quod An­tichristi Est, Omisit? aut Quid Ille ubi Venerit, plus committere poterit? Atha­nasius Epistola ad Solit. vitam Agentes. p. 236. anciently (and wildly) thought, that Nero was Antichrist, and as much might be said for him, as Grotius has said for Caligula) but they said, that he was to rise again, and come Sub Seculi Finem, and Act as Antichrist. But I never yet read or heard of any, besides the Learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond, who (in Sixteen hun­dred years after our blessed Saviour) ever seriously affirm'd, that Caligula, or Simon Magus was Anti­christ: The two Learned Persons (before menti­on'd) are the first, and they Contradict each other, themselves, the received Opinion of the Christian World, and gratifie Rome; whilst they indeavour [Page 196] (which neither they, nor any body else can do) to free the Pope from being the great Antichrist. For if either Caligula, or Simon Magus (who have been dead this Sixteen hundred years and more) be that Antichrist, then (unless you will have two or three such Antichrists) The Pope is secure, and (wrong'd by those who call him so) miscall'd An­tichrist. Sed salva res est, there is little danger from such extravagant Opinions; they will nei­ther be beneficial to the Pope, nor prejudicial to his Adversaries, to believe and prove him to be Antichrist. That Caligula, or Simon Magus, was that great Antichrist, none, or (if any) very few believe. The Reformed Churches say, that the Pope is Antichrist, and have great reason to say so: ma­ny of the Propheties, and Predictions of him in Scri­pture, being now actually fulfilled, and so the truth of the Prediction made Evident, and easie to be understood by the Event. On the other side the Po­pish Party say, that Antichrist is not yet come; and so neither Party does believe Caligula or Simon Magus to be Antichrist; because it is a Novel and Apo­cryphal Hypothesis (take which of the two you will) without truth or probability. Sure I am, that the Reasons those two Learned Persons bring for their Opinions, are evidently Illogical and In­consequent. For, 1. If Grotius his proofs for Caligula, be cogent and concluding, then Dr. Hammonds for Simon Magus are Inconsequent; and if Dr. Hammonds be Good, those of Grotius are not. Whence 'tis evident, that all the proofs of the one Party, (at least) are Impertinent, and [Page 197] to prove his Position Insufficient. 2. But indeed all the Reasons they both bring, to prove their se­veral Positions, are (as I said) Illogical and Incon­sequent. That this may not be gratis dictum; I say,

1. That both their proofs are built and rely upon the same ground; they take (not all, but) only some of the Characters and Marks of Antichrist which the Apostles give him in Scripture.

2. They indeavor to accommodate and apply those Marks to Caligula, or Simon Magus; and think they make it appear, that such Marks are really found in Caligula or Simon Magus.

3. And hence they Argue and Conclude thus— Such Marks of Antichrist are to be found in Cali­gula, or Simon Magus: Ergo, They (the one of them at least) are that Antichrist: Or (which is all one) Magus and Antichrist agree in some things; Ergo, They are the same.

4. Now such Arguing is miserably Illogical and In­consequent; and no better then this— A Duck and a Goose do agree in many things (each of them has one Head, two Legs, two Eyes, a flat Bill or Beak, and sometimes Feathers of the same co­lour, &c.) Ergo, A Duck is a Goose. Or thus — Sempronius and Titius agree in many things (they have the same Father and Mother, Romans both, born in the same Hour, (being Twins) bread at the same School, both good Scholars, &c. Ergo, Titius is Sempronius. The Reasons those Learned men bring to prove their several Antichrists, prove no more then those I have given; that is, just nothing.

[Page 198] 5. The reason of such Inconsequence, in such Arguments, is this; Young Sophisters in the University can tell you, out [...]. Porphyrius in Isagog. c. 2. §. 38▪ of Porphyrie, Aristotle, and their Scholiasts) That every indivi­dual person or thing, is made up, and does con­sist of such Properties and Qualifications, Quorum Collectio nunquam in aliquo alio Eadem esse potest. It is certain, that a Collection of all the Properties and Qualifications which Constitute any Indivi­dual person, cannot be in any other person whom­soever; though it is as certain, that some of them may. Now had Grotius or Dr. Hammond taken a Collection of all the Characters and Marks of An­tichrist, given him in Scripture, and made it ap­pear, that all those Marks had been really found in Caius Caligula, or Simon Magus, their proofs had been Logical and Consequent, (This they nei­ther did, nor could) But their accommodation and applying only some of the Marks of the Beast, to Caius or Magus, and thence Concluding that they were Antichrist, such deductions are evi­dently Illogical and Inconsequent. And so much the more Inconsequent, because even those marks of Antichrist which they indeavour to prove to be really in Caligula or Simon Magus, never were in either of them, in that sense and extent, in which they were (and since his coming are) to be found in Antichrist. If any man censure me (as may be some will) for contradicting those two Learned Persons (Dr. Hammond and Groti­us) all the Apology I shall make, (for it needs none) is only this; It is as lawful for me to [Page 199] contradict them, in defence of evident truth; as it was for them to contradict each other, and the Christian World, in defence of a manifest Error.

9. Observ. 9. The Pope in this his Impious and Lying Bull, declares the Queen to be ( what he really was, and she was not) a Elizabetha praeten­sa Angliae Regina, Flagi­tiorum Serva. Bulla. §. 1. Slave of Sin, a Declaramus praedi­ctam Elizabeth Haereticam & Hereticorum fautricem. §. 3. Heretick, and a favourer of Hereticks: And then (with a prodigious Antichristian Pride and Impiety) pro­nounceth his Penal Sentence against her, of Dam­nation, Excommunication, Deprivation, &c. And here it is further to be observed;

1. What this Papal Power is (and whence he has it) which he pretends to inable and authorize him, to sit Judge and pass such Damnatory Senten­ces against Princes and Supream Powers, for Heresie.

2. What that Heresie is, and who the Hereticks, who (by the Pope) are so severely damn'd for it.

3. What those punishments are, which they pre­tend they may, and actually do Inflict upon such Hereticks.

1. For the first, Pius the Fifth, in the begin­ning of this Impious Bull, tells us; that this Pa­pal Power is Divine. For he says— Christus Soli Petro, Petríque Successori, Roma­no Pontifici, in Potestatis, plenitudine Ecclesiam tra­didit Gubernandam. Hunc Vnum super Omnes Gentes & Omnia Regna Princi­pem Constituit, qui Evel­lat, Destruat, Dissipet, Disperdat, &c. In dictae Bullae Principio. That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter and his Successors, the Popes of Rome, Princes over all Nations, and Kingdoms, with a Plenitude of Power, to Pull up, Dissipate, and Destroy, &c. Thus he, and so others, in their Damnatory Bulls; but with some variati­on; and (if it were possible) in such words as are more Extravagant, Erroneous, and Impious. I [Page 200] shall only Instance in one; Paulus the Fourth, who was next Predecessor (save one) to Pius the Fifth, who in his Bull Hereticorum, Schis­maticorum corúmque f [...] ­torum poenae. That's the Title of the Bull. against Hereticks and Schisma­ticks and their Favourers, expresses his power to damn them, thus— Romanus Portifex, qui Dei & Domini nostri Jesu Christi Vices-gerit in terris, & super Gentes & Regna, plenitudinem Pote­statis, obtinet, Omnésque Judicat, à Nemine in Se­culo Judicandus, &c. In Bulla. 19. Paul. 4. Bullarij Rom. Tom. 1. p. 602. E­dit. Rom. 1638. The Pope of Rome here in Earth is Vicar, or Vice-Roy of God and our Lord Je­sus Christ, and has Plenitude of Power over Nations and Kingdoms, and is Judge of All men, and not to be Judged by any Man in the World. And that you may see, that they are not asham'd to pretend to, and u­surp such an Antichristian Power (for none but 2. Thess. 2. 4. Antichrist ever pretended to it). This Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth is referr'd into the Corpus Juris Ca­nonici per Pet. Matthae­um, Francofurti, Ann. 1599. Cap. Cum ex A­postolatûs, 9. De Haeret. & Schismat. in 7. Body of their Canon Law (almost One hundred years ago) dedicated to Cardinal Cajetan; and lately publish'd In Corpore Juris Ca­nonici, Lugduni, 1661. again, as a part of their Law, without any Contradiction (and therefore with the approba­tion) of the Pope or his Party. That this their Opi­nion of the Papal Power is far from truth or proba­bility, I have indeavoured to prove before; & sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus.

2. As to the second point; What is Heresie, and who is the Heretick, who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications? I say in short,

1. That it is agreed amongst their Haeresis est Error in Fide, Cum Pertinaciâ. Card. Tolet. Instruct. Sa­cerd. lib. 1. cap. 29. §. 2. Casuists, and Gratian. Can. dix­it Apostolos, 29. & Can. Qui in Ecclesiâ. 3. Caus. 24. Quaest. 3. & Glossa [...]. Canonists, That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe, joyned with per­tinacy; or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith; and he who so holds such an Opinion, is an Heretick.

[Page 201] 2. And he is pertinacious, they say, who holds such an Est autem pertina­cia, quando homo scit, aut scire debuit & potuit, ali­quid esse contrarium Scri­pturae, aut ab Ecclesiâ dam­natum. Cajetan. ibidem. Opinion, which he does, or might, and ought to know to be against Scripture, or the Church. By the way; I desire to be inform'd, how it is possi­ble for their Lay-people and unlearned, to know (with any certainty, or assurance) what Truths are ap­proved, or Errors damn'd in Scripture; when they are Vide Regulas, In­dici librorum Prohibit. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. Confecto, praefixas; Reg. 4. & Observat. Regulae dictae annexam. prohibited (under pain of Excommunication) ever to read, or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand? Nor are Bibles only, in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited; but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists, in any Vulgar Tongue, are Libri Vulgari Idio­mate, de Controversi [...] i [...] ­ter Catholicos & Haereti­cos nostri Temporis di [...]e­rences, non passim permit­tantur; Sed Idem de ipsis servetur, quod de Bibliìs vulgari linguâ scriptis, Statutum est. Ibid. Reg. 6. equally prohibited. So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error, what Doctrines are E­vangelical, what Heretical.

3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie; yet 'tis not really by them meant. For (by their re­ceiv'd Principles) a man may hold a hundred Errors, which he Does, or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith, and yet be no Heretick. For thus Car­dinal Tolet tells us— Vnde multi Rusti­ci, habentes errores contra Articulos fidei, excusantur ab Haeresi; Quia Igno­rant Articulos, & sunt Parati Obedire Ecclesiae, &c. Card. Toletus In­struct. Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 3. §. 7. Many Rusticks or Coun­try Clowns, having Errors against the Articles of Faith, are excused from Heresie; because they are Ignorant of those Articles, and are ready to Obey The Church. And a little before— Siquis [...]rret in his, quae tenebatur scire, tamen sine pertinaciâ, Quia nes­cit esse contra Ecclesiam, paratúsque est credere, quod tenet Ecclesia, non est Hae­reticus. Idem ibidem. If any man err in those things he is bound to know; yet so, as it is without pertinacy, because he Knows it not to be against The Church, and is ready to believe as the Church believes, he is no Heretick. So that (by [Page 202] their Principles) let a man believe as many things as he will, contrary to Scripture; yet if he have the Colliers faith, and implicitly believe, as the Church believes, all is well; he is (by them) esteemed no Heretick.

4. And hence it is, that they have of late, left the word Non enim ut quis (que) primum in fide peccaverit, Haereticus dicendus est. Sed qui Ecclesiae Authori­tate neglectâ, impias opini­ones pertinaci animo tue­tur. Catechis. Trid. ex Decreto Concilij Tri­dentini, Jussu Pij. 5. Edit. Paris. 1635. Part. 1. cap. 10. De 9. Symboli Articulo, §. 1. p. 107. Scripture out of their definition of He­resie; and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome, (not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture, but) who receive not, or contradict what is believed to be de fide, by the Pope and his Party. And there­fore they plainly tell us; That None can be an Heretick, who believes that Article of our Creed, The Holy Catholick Church (you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church, not only with­out, but against all reason) For so their Fieri igitur non possit; ut aliquis se Haere­sis Peste Commaculet, si iis fidem adhibeat, quae in hoc nono fidei Articulo creden­da proponuntur. Catechis. Trident. loco dicto. Trent-Catechism tells us; not only in the Text, but (least we should not take notice of it) in the Margent too; where they say, Verus. 9. Articuli Professor (that is, he who will believe what their Church believes) Nequit dici Haereticus. That is, he who believes the Church of Rome, to be the Catholick Church in the Creed, and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, he shall not (we may be sure) be call'd an Heretick at Rome. Nay, so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis; That to believe as the Church believes, excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie; that they expresly say, That such men may in some Cases, (not only Lawfully, but Meritoriously) believe an Error contrary to Scrip­ture, which (in another more knowing Person, [Page 203] would be a real and formal Heresie. The Case is this, (as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it, Rursus, si Rusticus circa Articulos Credat suo Episcopo, proponenti ali­quod Dogma Haereticum, in Credendo Meretur, licet sit Error; quia Tenetur Credere, donec ei Constet esse contra Ecclesiam. To­let. Instruct. Sacerd. l. 4. c. 3. §. 7. Idem habet Rob. Holcott, in. 1. Sentent. Quaest. 1. in Replica. ad 6. Principale: where he tells us, that simple peo­ple may err in many things, Dummodo velint Credere sicut Ecclesia Ca­tholica credit. And when he puts the case in an old simple woman, and says—Si audiat praelatum praedicantem Propositionem erroneam, quam ipsa nescit esse erroneam, & ei credit: Non peccat, sed Tenetur Errare, quia tenetur ei Credere; & Meretur vo­lendo Credere Errorem; & concedo (Inquit) quod ipsa potest adipisci Meritum Debitum Martyri, si ipsa Imerficitur pro tali Err [...] ­re, quem credit Articulum fidei, &c. If a Rustick or Ignorant Person, concerning Articles of Faith, do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion, he does Merit by believing, although it be an Heretical Error; be­cause he is Bound to believe, till it appear to him to be against The Church. So that in the mean time he is no Heretick. For, 1. He may lawful­ly do it. 2 He is Bound to do it, to believe his Bishop, and the Doctrines proposed by him. 3. Nay, it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors, though it be contrary to Scrip­ture and the word of our gracious God. This is strange Doctrine, yet publickly maintain'd by Especially the Jesuits; In the end of the Exercitia Spiritualia Ignatij Loyalae, Tolosae, 1593. there are Regulae Servandae, ut cum Ecclesiâ verè Sentiamus. The first of which is, Sublato Proprio Omni Judicio, tenendus est Paratus Animus ad Obediendum verae Ecclesiae. You may be sure they mean the Church of Rome. The thirteenth Rule is this—Si quid quod Oculis nostris Album apparet Ecclesia Nigrum esse definierit, debemus itidem, quod nigrum sit pronunciare. And to the same purpose Bellarmine tells us—Fides Catholica docet, Omnem virtutem esse bonam, & Omne vitium malum. Si autem Papa erraret, praecipiendo vitia & prohibendo virtutes, Tenetur Ecclesia Credere vitia esse Bona, & virtutes Malas—Tenetur credere bonum esse quod ille praecipit, & malum quod ille prohibet. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 5. §. ultima. Ita etiam V. Erbermannus contra Ame­sium, Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. §. 5. pag. 401. 402.their Casuists and Schoolmen, and approved by their Church. For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius, nor (in any publick de­claration) disown'd by their Church; & quae non prohibet peccare, aut errare cum possit, Jubet. And here, in relation to the Premisses, I shall further propose two things, and leave them to the Judg­ment of the Impartial Reader.

[Page 204] 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine, that an Implicite Faith in their Church, and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes, is enough to free a Papist from Heresie, and the punishment of it: though otherwise (through Ignorance) he hold some heretical Errors, contrary to what his Church believes: why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture, with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it, as it comes to his knowledge; free him from He­resie and the punishment of it; though other­wise (in the mean time) he may believe some things contrary to Scripture? Certainly, if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party, (for they are the Roman Church) with a resolution to believe them all, when they come to their knowledge, be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it; much more, will an Implicite Faith in the Do­ctrines taught by our blessed Saviour, and his Apo­stles in Scripture, with a Resolution to believe them all, when they really come to their knowledge, be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it. Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine, and in such a measure and degree In­fallible, as the Doctrines taught by the Pope, and his Party, (without great Error and Impu­dence) cannot pretend to.

2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine (as may ap­pear by the Premisses) that if any Bishop preach to his People, (the Laity and Unlearned Ru­sticks) [Page 205] some Heretical Doctrine, they are bound to believe it, and may not only Lawfully, but Meritoriously do so, till it appear that their Church is against it. Hence it evidently fol­lows; That if the Bishop preach'd this Do­ctrine, That 'tis lawful to kill an Heretical King, who is actually Anathematiz'd, and Deposed by the Pope; they were bound to believe it, and might lawfully and meritoriously do so; and then, if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine, then to put it in Execution, and actually kill such a King, could not be unlawful and vitious. So that we need not wonder, that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious King in the late Conspiracy, undertook such an Impious Imployment, since besides great store of Gold given to incourage them, their Religi­on and Learned Casuists afforded them such Prin­ciples (which they were bound to believe) to warrant and justifie their Villany, so that without scruple of Conscience they might do it. In short, they are Hereticks whom the Pope and his Party are pleased to call so; for (by their Crimen Haeresis est Mere Ecclesiasticum. In­nocent. 8. Constit. 10. §. 2. In Bullario Romano, Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. p. 337. Col. [...]. vide Cap. Ad abolendum, 9. Extra de Haereticis. Qui alitèr do­cent quam Ecclesia Roma­na, Excommunicantur. Law and Canons) they are sole Judges of the Crime (what Heresie is,) and the punishment due to it. 'Tis true, when they have passed Sentence upon any Heretick, they deliver him to the Civil Ma­gistrate; but he is only their Executioner, to hang or burn according to their Sentence; but has no Power to reverse their Sentence, nor so much as to Examine whether it be just or un­just; but (right or wrong) must do as they de­termine. [Page 206] And here (to say nothing of the Im­piety and Injustice of the Roman Church, in Con­demning those they call (or rather miscall) He­rericks; I shall take notice of a strange piece of their Hypocrisie, used by them, when (after Condemnation) they deliver the Condemned Person to the Civil Magistrate: when the Bi­shop or Inquisitor who delivers him, thus be­speaks the Civil Magistrate— Domine Judex, ro­gamus Vos cum Omni af­fectu, quo possumus, ut A­more Dei, Pietatis, & Misericordiae Intuitu, & nostrorum interventu pre­caminum, miscrimo huic nullum mortis, vel mutila­tionis periculum Inferatis. Pontif. Roman. Romae, 1611. p. 456. & Hostien­sis in summâ. l. 5. De Hae­reticis, pag. 424. Edit. Ludg. 1517. Sir, We passio­nately desire you, that for The Love of God, and in reguard of Piety, Mercy, and our Mediation, you would free this miserable Person, from All Dan­ger of Death or mutilation of Members. And it is there said, that the Bishop may do this, Pontifex Essicaci­tèr, & ex Corde, Omni In­stantiâ intercedit, &c. Ibi­dem in Rubrica. Ef­fectually and from his Heart. But notwithstand­ing all this seeming Piety and Tenderness, when they have Sentenced an Heretick to death; they expect and require the Magistrate to Execute that Sentence, within Infra. 6. dies, sine aliqua Processuum Visione, Sententias latas promptè exequantur, sub Excommu­nicationis poenâ, aliisque Censuris. Innocent. 8. Constit. 10. In Bullar. Rom. Tom. 1. p. 337. six days, upon pain of Ex­communication, Deprivation, and loss of Authority and Offices. Hence it is, that Pope Alexander the Fourth, about the year. 1260. gives Au­thority to the Inquisitors, to Facultas Cogendi Quoscunque Magistratus, sub poena Excommunica­tionis & Interdicti, &c. Alexand. 4. Const. 17. in dicto Bullar. p. 117. Tom. 1. & Constit. 18. in Lem­mate. Ibid. Compel All Magistrates to Execute their Sentence, (be it what it will). And Pope Innocent the Eighth says, they must neither Examine Sine Aliqua Pro­cessuum Visione. Innocent. 8. dicta Constit. 10. Nor see the Process against those they are to Execute. Nor is the matter mended since the times of Innocent the Eighth, and Alexander the Fourth; their Successors are for the same Compulsatory Power. The Council of Trent expresly says— Cogantur Omnes Principes Catholici Con­servare Omnia Sancita qui­bus Immunitas Ecclesiasti­ca declaratur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. De Reformat. c. 20. In Lemmate, Edit. Antverp. 1633. That All Catholick Princes are to be Compelled to observe [Page 207] All the Sanctions and Constitutions declaring their Ecclesiastical Immunities, amongst which this of punishing Hereticks is not the least, &c. By the Premisses (I believe) it may appear, that the Hypocrisie of the Popish Church is inexcusa­ble, when she takes God's Name in vain, and prays the Civil Magistrate, For the Love of God, &c. to do that which she knows (if he were willing) he neither can nor dare do; nor will she permit him to do, having under pain of Excommu­nication (and many other Penalties) absolutely prohibited him to do it. I say, 'tis not only the Bishop who so intercedes to the Civil Magistrate, but the Church of Rome her self, by him. Pope Innocent the Third is my warrant for saying so; who (in a Decretal Epistle to the Bishop of Pa­ris) tells us; That when a Condemn'd Person is delivered to the Secular Degradatus propter flagitium damnabile & damnosum, traditur Curiae seculari; pro quo tamen de­bet Ecclesia efficaciter In­tercedere, ut contra mortis periculum, circa eum sen­tentia moderetur. Cap. Novimus. 27. Extra. De verb. significatione. Judge, The Church must effectually interceed, that he moderate the Sentence so, (which she knows he neither dare, nor by their Law can do) that the Condemn'd Per­son may be in no danger of death. I know that Roffensis cotra Lu­therum, ad Art. 33. Ope­rum p. 642. Dixit enim Lutherus, Eos dicta Ora­tionis formulâ non Orare, sed ludere. Roffensis, (& other of the Popish Party) do endea­vour, with many little shifts, to palliate the Hypo­crisie of their Church, but in vain. For Omnia cum fecit, Thaida, Thais olet. Sure I am, that Ecclesia Haereticum Excommunicat, & ulterius relinquit cum Judicio Se­culari, à Mundo Extermi­nandum Per Mortem. A­q [...]in. 2. 2. Quaest. 11. Art. 3. Respondeo. Si Judex Ecclesiasticus tradat Curiae Seculari haereticum, non po­test in aliquo cognoscere se­cularis; scilicet, An Bene vel Male fuerit judicatum, sed tenetur exequi omninò. Card. Tuschus Conclus. Practicarum Juris. Tom. 4. Lit. H. Concl. 95. §. 4. p. 166. vide Turrecre­matam summa de Eccle­sia. Venet. 1561. part. 2. l. 4. p. 411. where he cites Wicliff' s Opinion, That the Popish Bishops are like the Pharisees, who having said, Non licet nobis quenquam occidere, Christum Seculari potestati tradide­runt, erant tamen homicidae Pilato Graviores. And when the Gloss (verbo deprehensi. Cap. Excom­municamus, 15. Extra de Haereticis) made some distinction of Persons deliver'd to the Secular Magistrate, and that docentes erant ultimo supplicio, officiendi; discentes vero decem Libris auri, &c. There is this Note in the (b) Margent—Hodie nulla est talis distinctio, nam Magistratus Se­cularis, Quemcunque Haereticum, sibi à Judicibus fidei traditum, debet Vltimo Supplicio afficere. Cap. ut. Inquisitioni de Haereticis. Lib. 6. (b) In Corpore Juris Canon. cum Glossis. Paris. 1612. Aquinas [Page 208] (Bannes Bannes ibidem. Conclus. 3. and others who Comment on that part of Aquinas) tells us, That the Condemn'd Heretick is deliver'd over to the Secular Power, to this very end, that he may be Put to Death, and taken out of the World; and a great and famous Sed quicquid dica­tur, Ad Hoc fit ista Tra­ditio ut Puniatur morte. Vid. Panormitan. ad Cap. Novimus. 27. Extra. De verb. significat. §. 8. Canonist (Hostiensis) says expresly, what I have done; that this Intercession of their Church to the Secular Magistrate, in behalf of the Con­demned Heretick, is, (in the Common Opinion) barely a Colour, and verbal Solet Communitèr dici, quod ista Intercessio est Potius Vocalis & Colo­rata quam Effectualis. I­dem Hostieusis, ibidem. only, not real. For thus I find him cited in Panormitan on the Decretals— Whatever (says he) may be said to the contrary; yet To this end, is He Delivered to The Secular Power, That He may be punished with death. Upon these Premisses, I think it evident, that the Church of Rome, in this her Intercession to the Secular Power, does (with strange Hypocra­sie) seem earnestly to desire that of the Magi­strate, which she knows he dare not do; nay, which she herself, by her publick Laws, has Com­manded him not to do. How she will Answer God (who Infallibly knows all her Hypocrisie) or her Adversaries, objecting it, I know not; ipsa viderit. In short; it is Omnes qui ab Ec­clesiâ Rom. hactenus desci­verant, pro Haereticis ha­biti fuerint. Honorat. Fabri Contra Indifferen­tes; Dilingae, 1657. lib. 2. cap. 18. & Mart. Bresse­rum. De Conscientia, lib. 1. cap. 25. pag. 113. 117. 118. Qui in Vno rejici­unt Authoritatem Ecclesiae. pag. 117. Col. 1. Lin. ulti­ma & penultima. confess'd, that all those who will not be Inslaved to Rome, and believe as she believes, in every thing, are He­reticks; and not only so, but damn'd, and while they continue so, and do not intirely be­lieve their New-Trent-Creed, they are out of all Possibility of Salvation. So their In Ecclesiâ dunta­xat Romana homines sal­vari possunt. Honorat. Fabri, Loco citato. pag. 133. So Bresserus and the rest of them not only of late, but above five hun­dred years ago; (yet af­ter the Devil was let loose, and Antichrist re­vealed) For an old Col­lector of their Canons tell us (Ivo Cornotens. De­cret. part. 1. De fide. c. 38.) Firmissimè tene, & nulla­tenus dubites, Omnes Paga­nos, Judaeos, Haereticos & Schismaticos, qui Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam (Romanum Intelligit) finiunt vitam, in Ignem Ae­ternum ituros, qui diabolo & Angulis ejus paratus est. This is the Charity of Rome, to damn all but themselves. Casuists [Page 209] perpetually affirm, and their Trent Council (in that Forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei, in the Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, Extant in the Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633. Sess. 24. De Re­form. p. 452. Constitutions of that Council) requires all their Ecclesiasticks, to promise, vow, and swear to believe and maintain it to their death. For in the end of that Creed, the words are— Ibid. Haec est Fi­des Catholica Extra quam, Nemo Salvus esse potest. This is the Catholick Faith, out of which no man can be saved. And then, they must Hanc fidem teneo & profiteor, in Praesenti, & Constantissimè tenere ad ultimum vitae spiritum spondeo, voveo, juro. Ibid. promise, swear, and vow to believe and profess it, most constantly as long as they live. So that although mens lives be exempla­ry and innocent, their Doctrines which they believe, Ancient and Catholick, yet if they dissent from Rome in any one thing, (and that too upon just grounds and evident reason) yet they shall be call'd, and used as Hereticks. A signal Instance we have of this in the Wal­denses anciently: and because many perhaps, (I speak not of the Learned) may neither know what it is, nor where to find it; I shall here crave leave to set it down. Reinerus contra Waldenses, Cap. 4. in Magna Bibliothecâ Pa­trum. Paris. 1654. Tom. 4. Part. 2. Col. 749. Sectae Haereticorum fuerant plu­res quam. 70. quae Omnes deletae sunt. Cap. 4. Reine­ri. Reinerus, a Dominican Frier, an Inquisitor, a severe Perse­cutor, who writ against the Waldenses, does (to their great honour, and the shame of Rome) give them this signal Testimony. He tells us of more then Seaventy ancient Heresies, most of which (he says) in his time, were overcome and vanished; But (says he) of all the Sects that were, or had been, Inter Omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt, vel fue­runt, non est Perniciosior Ecclesiae, quam Leonista­rum, & hoc tribus de Cau­sis. Ibidem. None was so pernicious to The Church of Rome, as the Leonists, or Wal­denses: and that for three Reasons.

[Page 210] Prima est, quia est Diut urnior; aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit, à tempore Sylvestri; aliqui, A Tempore Apostolorum.For the Antiquity and long Continuance of these Waldenses, from the time of Pope Sylvester (who was made Pope, Anno Christ. 316.) as some said; or (as others) from the time of the Apostles.

Quia est Genera­lior; Ferè enim nulla est Terra, in qua haec Secta non sit. Ibid. cap. 4. For the Generality of that Sect; because there was Scarce any Country where they were not.

Tertia, quia Cum Omnes aliae Sectae immani­tate Blasphemiarum in De­um, audientibus horrorem inducunt; Haec Leonista­rum, Magnam Habet Spe­ciem Pietatis; eo quod co­ram hominibus Justè Vi­vant; & Bene Omnia De Deo Credant, & Omnes Articulos Qui in Symbolo Continentur. Ibidem. When all other Hereticks (by reason of their Blas­phemies against God) were abborr'd by those who heard them: The Waldenses 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 [...]ernicious to any Truth, or any True Church. What was it then? Why, he tells us, in the next words, that it was Solummodo Romae­nam Ecclesiam Blasphe­mant, & Clerum; cui Mul­titudo Laicorum Facilis est ad Credendum. Ibid. 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 [Page 211] the Church of Rome; (for nothing is more per­nicious to darkness and error then light and truth) 1. They said, That the Ecclesia Romana est Meretrix in Apocalyp­si. cap. 17. vers. 1. 2. &c. Reinerus loco citato. c. 5. De Sectis Moderno­rum Haereticorum. Er­rore. 6. pag. 750. Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelati­on. 2. That the Pope was the Papa est Caput Om­nium errorum, &c. Ibid. Errore. 8. they deny'd al­so Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, the Popes Suprema­cy. Vide Card. Turre­crematam, in summa De Ecclesiâ. Part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 35. pag. 407. Edit. Venet. 1561. 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 Haeresis est, cum quis non sequutus Doctri­nam Christi, vel Apostolo­rum, vel Ecclesiae, Eligit si­bi novam credulitatem. Card. Tuschas Conclus. Juris. Tom. 4. Lit. H. Concl. 91. verbo Haeresis. p. 164. Haereticus est, qui aliquid credit, non obstante quod Ecclesia contrarium decreverit. Debet enim Intellectum Captivare Sa­crae Scripturae Sanctae (que) Ec­clesiae. (Cajet. in sum. ver­bo Haeresis.) And by Ho­ly Church you may be sure they do mean their own Roman Church, for they acknowledge none else, but damn all other Christians, as Hereticks. 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 [Page 212] 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 Quadruplex Haere­ticorum poena secundum Canones: scilicet, Excom­municatio, Depositio, Bono­rum ablatio, Militaris Per­secutio. Gloss. ad Cap. ad Apostol. 2. De Sentent. & re Judicata. In 6. ver­bo. Haeresis, In additio­ne. Ita Hostiensis in sum­ma. Lib. 5. pag. 424. Edit. Lugd. 1517. 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 Reynerius de Pi­sis, in summa De Haere­si. cap. 4. & F. Reynerus contra Waldenses. cap. 10. 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 Decretal. Greg. 9. Lib. 5. & Tit. 7. Decretals of Greg. 9. of De Haereticis. Lib. 5. Tit. 2. In Sexto. Bonis. 8. in the Clement. Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis. Clementines, Extravagantes Extrav. Commun. Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereti­cis. Communes (and in the lately added Septimi Decret. Lib. 7. Tit. 3. De Haereti­cis & Schismaticis. This seaventh Book of the Decretals was first Prin­ted with the Body of the Canon Law, (dedicated to Card. Cajetan) at Francfurt. 1590. and since at Lions, Anno 1661. 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 Leges Frider. 2. extant in Corpore Jur. Civilis cum Gloss. Lugd. 1618. in Calce lib. 2. Feu­dorum. Tom. 5. pag. 137. 138. &c. Friderick the Second, made in pursu­ance of the Conc. Laterani fub Innocent. 3. Ann. 1215. & praecipuè Canonis. 3. De Haereticis. Lateran Council, and (though [Page 213] 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 Nos Honorius, Ser­vus Servorum Dei, has le­ges à Friderico, pro utili­tate Omnium Christiano­rum (pro Pernicie Wal­densium) Editas, Lau­damus, Approbamus, & Confirmamus, tanquam In Aeternum valituras. Ita Honorius Papa. 3. in Cal­ce dictarum Legum. 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; Moral. Quaest. Tract. 32. cap. 7. De Poe­nis Haereticorum. Filliucius, Speculi. Lib. 4. part. 4. De Haereticis. Du­rantus, Summae. part. 2. Tit. 12. Cap. 4. De Haere­si. & Haereticorum Poenis. Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus, Instit. Moral. Tom. 1. Lib. 8. Capp. 10. 11. 12. Azorius, Paul Theol. Moral. Lib. 2. Tract. 1. c. 16. p. 202. Layman, Summae. Tom. 1. De Haeresi. p. 1017. Ve­net. 1585. Raynerius, Johan de Summae de Ec­clesiae. part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 1. &c. Turrecremata, Cardinal Hostiensis in sum­mae. Lib. 5. De Haereticis. p. 422. Edit. Lugd. 1517. Hostien­sis, and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Ter­raconensis (a most Learned Canonist, and a very useful Book) has given us a Catalogue of their Epitome Juris Pontisicij Veteris. Lib. 34. Tit. 3. & lib. 38. & lib. 11. Tit. 53. part. 1. & 2. &c. 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. Observ. 10. Concerning this Impious Bull, containing the Damnation (as he calls it) and Excommuni­cation [Page 214] 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 Vide Constit. 63. Paul. 5. In Bull. Romano. Rom. 1638. Tom. 3. pag. 183. Vbi Omnes Istiusmo di Bullae, quae dicto Bullario occurrunt Notantur. Bulla Coenae Domini (take famous in which sense you will, the worst is good enough) wherein they do (at Rome) Anathematize and Anathematizamus Quoscunque Hussitas, Wic­kliffistas, Lutheranos, Suinglianos, Calvinistas, Hugonottos, §. 1. dictae Bullae. 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 [Page 215] one; and (because it is of signal Consequence, and to our present purpose) give some short Ac­count of the Contents of it. The Bull I mean, is that of Pope Vid. Paul. 4. Con­stit. 19. In dicto Bullar. Tom. 1. p. 602. Paul the Fourth, next Predecessor, (save one) to Pius the Fifth, and is Bulla Paul. 4. data Romae, 15. Cal. Mart. Ann. 1559. Bulla autem Pij. 5. data Rom. 5. Cal. Maij. 1570. Eliz. 13. In dicto Bullario. Tom. 2. p. 229 dated ele­ven years before that of Pope Pius the Fifth. Now concerning this Bull, I observe

1. That it was no rash Act of that Pope, but (if he say true) made with Habita deliberatione Maturâ, de Cardinalium Consiliis & unanimi assen­su. Bullae dictae. §. 2. Mature deliberation, by the Counsel and unanimous Consent of himself and the Cardinals.

2. And it is further Bullam Paul. 4. &c. Renovamus Confirmamus, illámque Inviolabilitèr, & Ad Vnguem Observari vo­lumus & Mandamus. Con­stit. Pij. 5. 22. §. 3. dicti Bullar. Tom. 2. p. 151. Confirmed by his Successor Pius the Fifth, who Approves and Commands it to be Inviolably kept and observed. Nor is this all; but (that we may see how such Doctrine is ap­proved at Rome). This Bull of Paul the Fourth, and that of Pius the Fifth, which so fairly con­firms it, are now both of them referr'd into the Body of their Vid. Cap. 9. 10. De­cret. 7. De Haereticis & Schismaticis. In Corpore Juris Canon. Ludg. 1661. Canon Law.

Now in this Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth, thus confirm'd, approved, and received into the Body of their Law;

1. He does Omnes & singulas Excommunicationis, Pri­vationis, &c. & Quasvis alias Censuras & Poenas à Quibusvis Rom. Pont. aut Pro Talibus Habitis, in Constitut. contra Haereti­cos Quomodolibet Latis, Approbamus, Innovamus, ac Perpetuo observari, ac in Viridi Observantia esse de­bere decernimus. §. 2. Approve, Innovate, and Confirm All the Censures and Punishments due to Hereticks and Schismaticks, by any Constitution of any former Pope, or those who were Reputed Popes, How­soever those Constitutions were made and promul­gated, and Commands them to be kept in fresh Memory, and perpetually Observed.

[Page 216] 2. And then he Necnon Quoscun (que) qui hactenus à fide Catho­licâ deviasse, aut in Schis­ma aut Haeresin incidisse deprehensi sint, seu in Po­sterum incident, cujuscun (que) Conditionis, Gradus, seu Praeeminentiae existunt, e­tiamsi Baronali, Ducali, Regali, & Imperiali excel­lentia profulgeant, & eo­rum Quemlibet, Censuras Poenas praedictas incurrere Volumus ac Decernimus. Ibidem. §. 2. declares (with as little Chari­ty as Infallibility) that All Hereticks which are, or For the Future shall be, do Incurr All these Censures and Punishments, and 'tis his express Will and Decree they should do so. And that we may not mistake his meaning, as if All those Censures and Punishments were by him Inflicted and Denounced only upon and a­gainst some Inferior Persons and Hereticks; he does seaven or eight times expresly name Counts, Barons, Marquesses, Dukes, Kings and Emperors: And further says; That as Heresie and Schism in them is more Pernicious to others, so ought their Punishment to be more severe; and then ( by his Constitution, which he declares to be Hac nostra Consti­tutione in Perpetuum Vali­turâ, sancimus, statuimus, definimus, &c. §. 3. perpetually and for ever Obligatory, he actually and totally Comitatibus, Baro­niis, Marchionatibus, Du­calibus, Regnis & Imperi­is penitus, &, in Totum Perpetuo Privati sint, &c. Ibidem. Deprives them of their Counties, Baronies, Marquisats, Dukedoms, King­doms and Empires, and leaves them to the Se­cular Power, to Secularis relinquan­tur arbitrio Potestatis, ani­madversione Debita puni­endi, habentúrque Pro Re­lapsis. Ibid. §. 3. receive Due Punishment, that is, Death; as is evident by the Conse­quents in that Constitution). Nor is this all; He damns them to an Ad illa de Caetero sint Inhabiles & Incapa­ces; nec Restitui aut Re­habilitari Possint. Ibidem. Incapacity and Per­petual Inability of being restored to their Ho­nours or Possessions; No, not if they seriously and truly repent, and become good Catholicks. For in that case of their true Repentance and forsaking their Heresie, they shall save their Lives; yet they must be Apparentibus verè Poenitentiae Judiciis & Condignis fructibus, in loco aliquo Regulari, ad Pera­gendum Perpetuam in Pa­ne Doloris & Aqua Moe­stitiae poenitentiam, Detru­dendi sunt—& evitari Omnique Humanitatis So­latio destitui debent. Ibid. Cast into Perpetual Prison, and there be fed with Bread of Sorrow, and Water of Sadness, and to have no Comfort or Humanity shew'd them by any, no not by [Page 217] Kings or Emperors. And though this be the height of Impious and Antichristian Tyranny, yet Ex Ipsius Sanctae Sedis Benignitate & Cle­mentia. Ibid. §. 3. N. Ey­mericus Directorio In­quisitorum, part. 3. pag. 516. Col. 1. it must be Imputed (as he tells us) to the Popes Clemency and Benignity. By the Pre­misses it may evidently appear, That Queen Elizabeth was (by many Papal Bulls and Dam­natory Constitutions) actually Excommuni­cate, before this Bull of Pius the Fifth. I desire then to know, Whether those Anathema's of former Popes, (which they Declared and Com­manded to be in force against all Hereticks For ever, and Perpetually Obligatory) were valid and did Actually and (as they Intended) Effectually Exclude that Queen out of their Church, or not? If not; then 'tis certain, the Pope has not that Supream Power he pretends to. For when so many Popes, in their Damnatory Bulls, (and that Ex Plenitudine Potestatis Apostolicae) declare the Queen, and all such Hereticks, Excommu­nicate, and (as their Phrase is) cut Esséque à Christi Corporis unitate praecisam. In Bulla Pij. 5. §. 3. & Paul the Third in his Dam­nation of Hen. 8. and all his Adherents, says, E­ósque Anathematis, Male­dictionis, & Damnationis Aeternae Mucrone Percuti­mus. Bulla Paul. 3. 7. §. 7. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 515. Col. 2. Edit. Ro­mae, 1638. off from the Vnity of the Body of Christ, and Eternally damned: If this be not Effectually done, then all those Bulls are Bruta Fulmina, Inefficacious, Null and Insignificant. But if those Anathe­ma's and Excommunications of former Popes, were valid, and the Queen by them, Actually put out of the Church, (as will, I suppose, and must (by them) be granted) then Pius the Fifth his Excommunication is a nullity, and indeed a ridiculous Impossibility. It being impossible, he should take from her, what she had not; and deprive her (by any Excommunication) of that [Page 218] Ecclesiastical Communion, of which the stood Actually deprived before by his Predecessors; especially by Pope Paul the Third, who Ex­communicates and Curses not only Henry the Eighth, but particularly all Henrici Regis ex dicta Annanatos & nasci­turos, aliósque descenden­tes, usque ad gradum in Jure Constitutum, nulla ae­tatis aut sexus ratione ha­bitâ, dignitatibus, Domi­niis, &c. Privamus. & ad Similia obtinenda Inhabi­litamus. Ibid. dictae Bul­lae. §. 9. his Children, Male and Female, born or to be born of Ann Bolen (Mo­ther of Queen Elizabeth) declares them deprived of all Power and Dominion, and of all their Goods and Patrimony, and Incapable of restitution to that Power and Patrimony, and of Acquisition of any other for the future. And that we should not doubt, that this was the Popes meaning, they have added a Marginal Note to that Bull in the Roman Edition, which tells us; Filiòsque eorum de dignitatibus, Dominiis, &c. & bonis Omnibus Privatos, & Ad Alia de Caetero Obtinenda Inhabi­les esse declarat. Ibid. in Margine. That the Pope (in that Bull) did deprive the Children of Henry the Eighth, and his Adherents, of All their Goods and Dignities, and declared them Incapable of any other for the future.

By the Premisses, I think it may be, and is Evi­dent, that Queen Elizabeth (by most Papal Bulls and Constitutions) stood Actually Excommuni­cate and Depos'd before this Bull of Pius the Fifth. Sure I am, the Popish Party never own'd her as their lawful Sovereign, but call'd her an Usurper of the Crown, to which (as a Declared and Ex­communicate Heretick) she had no right at all. And it seems, Pope Pius himself was of the same Opinion. For in this very Bull, he speaks of her only as Elizabetha Prae­tensa Angliae Regina. Bul­lae. [...]. 5. §. 1. Pretended Queen; and of her Ipsum Praetenso Reg­ni Jure privatam. Ibidem. §. 4 Pre­tended right to the Crown. And hence we may with Reason and good Logick Infer, That when Pius the Fifth in this his Bull Excommunicates and Depo­ses [Page 219] her; he does (notwithstanding his Plenitude of Power and Infallibility) ridiculously undertake (what he could not do) an Impossibility. For as it is impossible to turn Sempronius out of a House in which he never was; or deprive him of a Do­minion which he never had, (turning out of a House, necessarily presupposing his being in it, and deprivation presupposing Right and Possessi­on) so it is a like Impossibility for the Pope, by a­ny Excommunication, to turn the Queen out of the Communion of the Popish Church, in which she never was; (being born, baptiz'd and always bred in the Protestant Church and Religion) or deprive her of those Dignities and Dominions, which (according to their own It is a Resolved Case in the Canon Law, (and Pope Gelasius is the Casuist who Resolves it) Quicúnque in Haeresin s [...] ­mel damnatam labitur, e­jus damnatione seipsum in­valuit: Or (as it is in the Lemma prefix'd to that Canon) Ejus Dam­nationis participem se fa­cit. Vid. Can. Achatius. 1. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. And Can. Majores. 2. Idem Gelasius codem modo Statuit. And Pope Fe­lix says, Non ultra in eum procedere oportet, qui in hae­resin damnatam incidit. Ibid. Can. Achatius. 3. Principles) she never had any right to, nor ever could have any; being (by their Law, and many Papal Anathema's and Decretals) utterly disabled, and made incapa­ble of any such Dominions or Dignities.

11. It is evident that the Pope in this Impious Bull, Observ. II. does (by his usurp'd Antichristian Power) Depose and Deprive Queen Elizabeth of all her Royal Authority, Dominion and Dignity, and so puts her into the Condition of a poor private Person, without any Power or Jurisdiction over all, or any of her Subjects. Whence these dam­nable Doctrines and Impious Conclusions evi­dently follow,

1. That if any Jesuit, any Villanous Raviliac, or through pac'd Papist had kill'd, or with Poyson or Pistol had taken away her Life, (as they often [Page 220] Indeavor'd) it had been no Treason. For all know, that Treason is Crimen Vid. Justinianum F. ad. Leg. Juliam Maje­statis; & Statut. 25. Ed­vardi. 3. c. 2. in the Sta­tute of Purveyors, Anno Domini. 1350. Majestatis, or Laesa Majestas; a Crime against Sacred Maje­sty; either Immediately, against the Person, or Persons in whom Majesty resides; or medi­ately against those who are his nearer Repre­sentatives, as the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer and the Judges, when they are in Execution of their Office. And though there be an Inferior Degree of Treason, (as of a Servant a­gainst his Lord and Master, a Wife against her Husband) yet no Treason ever was (either by the Imperial and Civil, or our National and Common Laws) but against a Superior. And therefore the Queen being deposed by the Pope as an Heretick, and actually deprived, not only of all her Royal Power and Majesty, but of all Jurisdiction and Superiority over her Subjects (and they absolved from their Oaths of Allegi­ance and Fidelity) and so a private Person on­ly, without any Power to command Obedi­ence. I say, upon these Impious Popish Prin­ciples, to kill the Queen could not possibly have had the Nature or Name of Treason. Had they by open War, or privately by Poyson or Pistols, taken away her life (as they Intended, and often Indeavor'd, as we shall see anon) they might have been Murderers, but not Traitors. So that the Pope and his Party be­lieving that the Queen was Actually deposed and deprived of all her Royal Dignity and Do­minion, as a Heretick; they must consequently [Page 221] believe, that the Murdering of her, by any of her former Subjects, neither was, nor could be Treason. But this is not all, For

2. Admit she had not been deposed, by any Papal Law, Bull or Decretal Constitution; yet any of their Popish Clergy might have murder'd her, and been no way guilty of Treason, though they were English men, and born her Subjects; nay, though they had actually taken the Oaths of Allegiance before they took Popish Orders. The reason of this is evident, and a necessary Consequent, from their Impious and Rebelli­ous Principles. For they say, That the Clergy Clerici Rebellio in Regem non est Crimen Lae­sae Majestatis, quia nen est Subditus Regi. Eman. Sa Aphoris. Confess. verbo Clericus. p. 41. Are no Subjects of any Prince; and therefore they themselves conclude (as well they may) that if they Rebel and seek the Ruin of their Prince, yet (in them) it is no Treason. This Emanuel Sa, the Jesuit expresly tells us, in a Book (not sur­reptitiously sent into the World, but) publish'd with his Colon. 1599. Name to it, Dedicated to the Virgin Ad Beatiss. Dei Matrem. Accipe (Sapien­tiae Divinae Sacr [...]rium) Libellum hu [...]c; tuoque Prae­sidio sic tuere & promove, ut ad Multorum proficiat aeternam Salutem. Ibid. pag. 2. Mary, approved, highly Commended, and Licenc'd by Hi Aphorismi Docti sunt & Pij, Multámque utilitatem alaturi Confes­sariis Omnibus. Ibid. pag. 384. Sylvester Pardo. Ec­cles. Antverp. Canonicas Librorumque Censor. Publick Authority. Thus is this Rebellious Doctrine approved, not only by the Librorum Censor at Antverp; but in Heaven too; at least in the Opinion of the Author, who o­therwise would not have dedicated it to the Virgin Mary, and desired her Patronage, and Promotion of it, for the good of Souls. Sure I am, I do not find it Condemn'd in any of their Indices Expurgatorij (neither in the Index Librorum Prohibit. Novissimus, Madriti. 1667. Eman. Sa non Omnino meminit. Spanish Index, nor that of Index Librorum Prohibit. Olysipone. An. 1624. p. 543. Portugal, nor that of Pope Index Librorum Prohibit. Alexandr. 7. Romae, 1667. pag. 41. Alexander the Seaventh at [Page 222] Rome, &c. Nay, so far are the Inquisitors from Condemning this Rebellious Doctrine of E­manuel Sa, that the Spanish Index does not so much as name, much less censure him or his Aphorisms. But the Loco dicto. Portugal Index, (in which both the Author and his Aphorisms are ex­presly nam'd) censures only two Propositions (one about Pennance, the other about Extream Vnction) which the Inquisitors (the Supream Ii Aphorismorum Codices deinceps permit tun­tur, à quibus Expunctae sunt duae Sententiae, quas Ann. 1611. pridie Calend. Mart. Cavendas Rescrip­sit, Sanctae & universalis Inquisitionis Congregatio, per Illustriss. Card. Arrago­nium. Index Olysipone. 1624. loco dicto. Congregation of them at Rome) would have left out; and then approved and permitted all the rest. And so that Erroneous and Impious Aphorism, That Clergy-men are not Subjects of Kings, and therefore not Capable of Committing Treason, al­though they actually Rebel against and Murder them. But the late Index of Pope Alexander the Seaventh, speaks more fully and home to our present purpose, and expresly, permits, and approves (for we may be sure they will not per­mit what they do not approve) all Editions of those Emanuelis Sa A­phorismi Confessariorum Hactenus Impressi, etiam Romae, ante Ann. 1602. post autem tale Tempus Ro­mae Editi de mandato Ma­gistri Sacri Palatij Per­mittuntur. Index Alex­andri. 7. loco dicto. Aphorisms, ( Even at Rome) before the year 1602. In all which this Rebellious Aphorism, we are speaking of, was, and so was approved by them. This does further and (if that be pos­sible) more evidently appear out of these their Approved and Authentick Expurgatory Indi­ces, wherein this Proposition—( Priests Are By The Law of God Subject to Princes) is damn'd as Erroneous and Heretical, both in the Ex Indice Joh. Chrysostom. Basil. 1558. Dele sequentia. And then (amongst many other e­vident truths) this Pro­position follows; Sacer­dotes Etiam Principibus Jure Divino Subditi. This must be Expunged. In­dex Libr. Prohib. Madri­ti. 1667. pag. 703. Col. 1. Spa­nish Index, and that of And the Index of Portugal, Edit. Olysi­pone, Ann. 1624. p. 753. Col. 1. damns the very same Position. Portugal. For the Inquisitors finding it in the In Indice Operum Chrysostom. Basil. 1558. ex Officina Frobeniana. Index of Chry­sostom, Command it to be expunged and blot­ted [Page 223] out; Although Chrysostom (in the Text) says the very same thing. Hence it evidently follows; That if this Proposition ( Priests (by the Law of God) Are Subject to Princes) be erro­neous and false, as the Pope and his Party say it is, (their Inquisitors Commanding it to be Expung'd, as Erroneous) then the Contradi­ctory ( Priests Are not by The Law of God Subject to Princes) must of necessity be true, and by them approved and believed. Unless they will say, (which were highly irrational and ridicu­lous) that Contradictory Propositions may be both false, and they believe neither of them. But this they neither do, nor will say; for their greatest Writers publickly say, and Indea­vour to prove, That Priests Are not Subject to Princes. Nay, Persona Cujuslibet Cle­rici est Sancta quoad hoc, quod Non Potest Subjici Potestati Seculari. Caje­tan. in. 2. 2. Quaest. 99. §. Ad Quintum Dubium mihi. p. 247. Col. 3. 4. Cardinal Cajetan expresly says, That the Clergy are so Sacred, that 'tis Im­possible they should be Subject to Princes. When he says, It is impossible, his meaning is, that 'tis (not naturally, but) morally impossible; because if any Prince should use his Priests and Clergy as Subjects, it were a great Sin, and (in his Opinion) Sacriledge; and therefore Impossi­ble: Because, according to the Rule of Law, Illud solum Possumus quod Jure Possumus. So we have that great Roman Cardinal expresly ap­proving that Rebellious Doctrine, That Priests are not Subject to Princes. Nor (we may be sure) was it any private or singular Opinion of his, which died with him; For when R. Patris Emanu­elis Sa Aphorismi Con­fessariorum. Coloniae 1599. after­wards, Emanuel Sa's Aphorisms (wherein the [Page 224] same Doctrine was maintained) were publish'd, as a Opusculum Theolo­gis Omnibúsque animarum Curam habentibus Vtile ac Necessarium. Ibid. in Libri dicti [...]. Work Profitable and Necessary for Di­vines, and All who had Cure of Souls. An Ad­vocate of the Parliament of Paris (eminent for Law and Learning) tells us two Things: 1. That those Aphorisms were Approved at Vide Librum cum hac [...], Les Oe­vures de Maistre Jacques Leschasier, &c. Paris. 1652. p. 421. Libellus A­phorismorum Romae Proba­tus. Rome: 2. And then passes a just Censure upon them — Quae Doctrina (that the Clergy are not Subjects to Princes) est pestis & eversio Rerum pub­licarum—Regia pote­stas vel suprema nihil ali­ud est, quam Constitutio Dei, quae Omnes Mortales Jurisdictioni Regum subji­ciuntur. Ibidem. That such Doctrine was the Plague and Ru­in of Commonwealths: Royal and Supream Pow­ers being the Ordinance of God, by which All Men are made Subject to the Jurisdiction of Kings; So that Learned Person. And (to pass by all o­thers) an Excellent Person) of great Judgment and Integrity, and a Roman Catholick, (I mean Father Vide Historiam Interdict Veneti, per P. Sarpium, 1626. Edit. La­tina. Paul of Venice) tells us; that in the Quarrels between Pope Paul the Fifth, and the Venetians, a World of Books were writ (by Je­suits and others) to vindicate the Popes Cause, and they Omnes, in eo Con­cordes asserebant, Clericos Non esse Principi Subditos, ne in Crimine quidem Lae­sae Majestatis. pag. 107. dictae Historiae & pag. 13. All Agreed in this, That the Clergy were Exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction, & quoad Personas & Bona; Secular Princes had nothing to do with their Persons or Purses; nor were They Sub­jects to Princes, no not in 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 Ecclesiasticos non Comprehendi inter Subdi­tos Principis, nec ab eo posse poenis affici, etsi Rebelles essent. They are the words of Pope Paul the fifth to the Venetian Ambassador, in Decemb. 1605. in the aforesaid History, pag. 13. Gre [...]ser tells us— Cl [...]rici non pertinent ad Regis Jurisdictionem. Considerat. ad Theolog. Venetos. l. 2. pag. 137. Edit. Ingolstadij, Ann. 1607. And there (besides Bellarmine and Baronius) he gives us a List of Thirteen or Fourteen Authors, who writ for the Pope in his Quarrel with the Venetians, of the same Opinion. Gretser Ibid. p. 380. Ecclesiasticks were not Comprehended in [Page 225] 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;

[Page 226] 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— Nont sunt Homici­dae, qui adversus Excom­municatos Zelo Matris Ecclesiae, armantur. Ita Lemma praesixum Can. Excommunicatorum. 47. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. vide Lemma hujus Can. apud Juonem. Decreti part. 10. cap. 54. 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, Non eos Homici­das Arbitramur, quos ad­versus Excommunicatos, Zelo Catholicae Matris ar­dentes, aliquos corum Tru­cidasse contigerit. Ibid. in Canone. 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 Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus; Decret. part. 30. cap. 54. end of the Eleventh Century; and about Twenty years after (by Ivo Carnotensis) referred into a Moritur Urban. 2. Anno Christ. 1099. Collection of the Roman Canons: And Gratian (about Forty years af­ter Ivo) Registers it in his Decretum, which Pope Vide Bullam Gre­gor. 13. dat. Romae, 1. Jul. 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praesixam. Gregory the Thirteenth approves and [Page 227] confirms for Law; and so it stands confirm'd, and received for Law, Vide Edit. Juris Canon. cum Glossis Pa­ris. 1612. & Edit. sine Glossis, Paris. 1618. & Editionem Lugduni, 1661. &c. 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 Rev. 20. 2. 3. the Devil was let loose, and Antichrist appeared) a­bove Six hundred years.

I know that honest Father Remonstrant. Hi­bernorum part. 5. c. 13. §. 10. pag. 34. 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 Si Contingentèr trucidaverit, non esse Ho­micidam Formalem, &c. Ibidem.— 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 Vrbani ideo Sen­tentia Non suit, Excom­municatos vel Haereticos De Proposito interimi posse. Ibidem. Ex­cuse those from Murder, who Intended, and directly Purposed to kill Hereticks and Excommunicate Persons. For (says he) this were to Alioquin certe ve­ritatem Omnem & Fidem expugnasset. Ibidem. 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— Horrendum igitur Principium, Maledictum & Execrabile est, Haereti­cos, vel Excommunicatos, eo ipso interimi posse, &c. And again, Inter Damna­bilia & Anathemata repo­nimus. Ibid. §. 11. p. 35. 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 [Page 228] 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 Turrecremata ad Can. Excommunicator. 47. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. Cardinal Turrecremato too; who says, That Excommunicate Hereticks may be kill'd, not only Casually (as Father Caron mistakes the Text) but with an Intentio requiritur, quia licet bonam habue­rint voluntatem, potuerunt tamen peccare Intentione. Si Interfecerunt Haereti­cos, quia Infestabant Ec­clesiam, in hoc Bonam ha­berunt Voluntatem; pecca­verunt tamen si Intende­bant habere Bona Haereti­corum. Si ergo bono Z [...]lo & Mandato Ecclesiae ali­quos Interfecerunt, non sunt Homicidae Reatu, nec Vlla Poenitentia est Im­penenda. Turrecremata loco dicto. 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 Agnoscit Peronius, (Orat, ad Status, pag. 107.) Tyrannum Vsurpatione Licitè interimi posse: at qui Rex Omnis semel à Papa depositus, si postea admini­straverit, Rex Vsurpatio­ne & Tyrannus est; quia abs [...]ue Jure Jus Vsurpat. F. Caron. Remonstrant. Hibernorum. part. 4. c. 1. §. 20. p. 265. 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 [Page 229] 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— An Pontifex Roma­nus Principes seu Magi­stratus Protestantium pos­sit deponere, vel Occidere, tanquam Excommunicatos? Vide F. Caron Remon­strant. Hibernorum part. 1. cap. 4. §. 3. p. 12. 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) Convenientibus er­go in hac Causa Theologis Anglicanis, pro Negativâ resolverunt. Ibid. §. 3. num. 3. Subscribed the Negative; That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants. But when this was heard at His nunciis Romae receptis, sacra Congrega­tio resolutionem illam ne­gativam, tanquam Haere­ticam mox Condemnat, citatisque Romam Autho­ribus, Carceres & Censurae parantur. Ibidem. Rome, the Pope and his Sacred Congregation (as they call it) Condemned that Negative Proposition, as Heretical, and Summon'd the Subscribers to Rome, where Prisons and Censures (as Father Caron tells us) were prepared for them. Whence it is Evi­dent, that to deny the Popes Power to Depose and Kill Protestant Princes, is (at Rome) declared He­retical; and therefore, that he has a Power to Depose and Kill, is a part of their Catholick Creed, and believ'd three. Whence it further follows, that they do think such Killing of Protestants to be no Murder, nor those who kill them, (out of Zeal to the Catholick Cause) Murderers. 5. When Ray­mundus [Page 230] Floruit sub Greg. 11. circa Ann. 1311. Ni­col. Eymericus Direct. Inquisit. p. 255. Col. 2. D. Lullus (a Possevin. Apparat. in Pet. Remundo. man famous in his time and after it) had said, and in his Writings pub­lished, That it was Interficientes Hae­reticos sunt Injuriosi & vi­tiosi in suo Memorari, In­telligere, & Velle, &c. Ey­mericus Ibid. p. 260. Col. 2. A. unlawful and impious to kill and murder Hereticks; (for he had seen and heard, of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses, and such as at Rome were call'd Hereticks, in, and be­fore his time) Nic. Eymericus (Inquisitor of Arra­gon) complains of him, and his Writings, to Pope Gregory the Eleventh; who (in full Consisto­ry with the Greg. 11. in Con­sistorio, etiam de Consilio Fratrum, interdixit & condemnavit Doctrinam Raym. Lulli, &c. Eymeri­cus loco dicto. p. 255. Council of his Cardinals) damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus; and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Hereticks. 6. And Lastly, Pope Leo the Tenth in his Oecu­menical (so they call it) Lateran Council (Sacro ap­probante Concilio) with the Consent and Approba­tion of that Council) declares; That our blessed Saviour Christus Petrum E­júsque Successores Vicari­os suos Instituit, quibus (ex Libri Regum Testimo­nio) Ita Obedire Necesse est, ut qui non Obediret, Morte Moriatur. Binius Concil. Tom. 9. pag. 151. Col. 2. E. Edit. Paris. 1636. Did Institute Peter and his Successors his Vicars; to whom (by the Testimony of The Book of Kings) it was so necessary to yield Obedience, that Whosoever would not (as no true Protestant ever would or could) was to be punished with Death. The Pope was not pleased to tell us, what Book of Kings (for in their Vulgar Latin Version, there are four Books of that name) nor what Chapter or Verse he meant: and he did wisely to conceal what Place in those Books he intended; for had he nam'd a­ny particular place, (though he pretended to In­fallibility) his folly would have much sooner ap­peared. It is indeed ridiculous, for any man to think, that any thing said in those Books of Kings, can prove, that our blessed Saviour Constituted a Vicar General over his whole Christian Church, [Page 231] with power to kill all who would not comply with him, and that Peter and his Successors the Popes, were the men: seeing there is not one Syllable of all, or any of this, in any of the four Books of Kings; Nor any Text from which it may (with any sense or probability) be deduc'd. Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils ( Peter Crab, Surius, Binius, Labbe, &c. supply'd that defect, and told us, what place Pope Leo meant, and from which he, or they could prove the Popes Power to kill all who comply'd not with his Com­mands. I know that Pet. Crab. Concil. Colon. Agrip. 1551. Tom. 3. p. 694. Col. 2. So Turrecremata summa de Eccles. l. 2. cap. 114. Prop. 7. Crab, Laur. Surius Con­cil. Colon. Agripp. 1567. Tom. 4. p. 681. Col. 2. Surius, and Binius Concil. La­tet. Paris. 1636. Tom. 9. pag. 151. Col. 2. B. Binius (though Labbe has omitted it, as Imperti­nent) have, in their Editions of the Councils, cited in their Margents, Deut. 17. for a proof of that Erroneus and Impious Position, (it seems their Infallible Judge mistook Kings for Deuteronomy, or that they could find nothing in any Book of Kings for the Popes purpose.) But they name not the Verse; though (I believe) it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean. Where 'tis said, That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge, That Man shall Dye. This (I say) is alto­gether impertinent, as to the proof of the Popes Position. For admit (which is Vide Grotium and Ainsworth in Deut. 17. vers. 9. 12. &c. Vide 2 Chron. 19. 8. 9. &c. manifestly un­true) that by Priest here, the High Priest only was meant: yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say, Whosoever disobey'd the Sentence of the High Priest, in the Jewish Church, must be put to death: Ergo, Whoever disobeys the Pope in the Christian Church, must be so too. This (I say) is Inconse­quent, for the Priests in the Jewish Church (not [Page 232] only the High Priest, but other Priests and Le­vites) by the express Law of God, had as Judg­es in many Cases, Power of Life and Death: but in the Gospel, our blessed Saviour left no such Power to his Apostles and their Successors; Ex­communication is the highest Punishment, Peter, or any, or all the Apostles could inflict, by any Au­thority from our blessed Saviour in the Christian Church, and this Power succeeded Intersection or putting to death in the Judaical Church. So St. Non nunc Agit in Ecclesia Excommunicatio, quod tunc (ante Christum in Synagoga) agebat Inter­sectio. Aug. Quaest. super Deuteronomium, lib. 5. cap. 38. And elsewhere; Phineas Sacerdos Adulte­ros simul Inventos ferro ultore confixit, Quod uti (que) Degradationibus & Ex­communicationibus, signi­ficatum esse faciendum hoc tempore. Idem. Aug. de Fide & Bonis Operibus. cap. 6. Augustin expresly tells us, and to him I refer the Reader. By the Premisses, I think it may appear, that, if (after the Popes Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth) any of her Popish Subjects, (Laity or Clergy, Regular or Secular) had by taking Arms publickly, or by Poyson or Pistol, Privately taken away her life, (according to their approved Principles) it had been no Re­bellion, Treason or Murder, but (in their Opini­on) an Action Just and Innocent. But this (though too much) is not all; their Error and Impiety rises higher. For,

4. Had any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects (after the Popes Excommunication) kill'd her, that Ex­ecrable Fact had been so far from being Murder, that (in their opinion) it had been an Action not only Indifferent, or Morally good, but Meritorious. In the year 1586. (which was the Nine and twen­tieth of Elizabeth) in the Colledge of Rhemes, Giffard, Dr. of Divinity, Gilbert Giffard and Hodg­son, Priests, had so possess'd the English Semina­ries, with a belief of this Doctrine, That John [Page 233] Savage willingly and gladly vowed to kill the Queen. The Story is in In the English Se­minary at Rhemes, some there were, who believ'd, Pius the fifth's Bull to be dictated by the Holy Ghost, and they perswaded themselves and others, that it was meritorious to take away the lives of Princes Excommunicate, and Mar­tyrdom to spend a man's life in the Cause. These things Giffard, Dr. of Di­vinity, Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson inculcated so deeply into John Savage, that he willingly and glad­ly vowed to kill Queen Eli­zabeth. Camb. Annals of Q. Eliz. l. 3. p. 301. 302. of the English Edi­tion, (I have not the La­tin now by me) Lond. 1635. Cambden (an Histo­rian of unquestionable truth and fidelity) After Ann. Christ. 1598. Eliz. 41. apud Cambde­num Annal. l. 4. p. 498. 499. dictae Editionis. this, Walpoole, the English Jesuite, perswades Edward Squire, that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen; tells him, it might easily be done, by Poysoning the Pomel of her Sadle; gives him the Poyson; Squire undertakes it, Walpoole blesseth him, and promises him Eternal Salvation, and so (ha­ving sworn him to Secresie) sends him into England: where (notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings) he was taken, confess'd all this, and was Executed in the year. 1598. And Camdben Ibid. p. 499. there tells us, That a Pestilent Opinion (as he truly calls it) was got amongst the Popish Party (even amongst their Priests) That to take away Kings Excommunicate, was Nothing Else, but to Weed the Cockle out of the Lords Field. It is true, none of those impious and damnable Designs, had their desir'd Effect; God Almighty protecting that good Queen, (it being impossible that any Power or Policy should prevail against his Providence) yet the Matter of Fact (confessed by themselves, or evidently pro­ved by Legal Witnesses) manifestly shews, that they thought killing the Queen, (for the benefit of their Catholick Cause) was a Meritorious Work, which they designed to do, and (had their Ability been Equal to their Impiety) would have done. 2. Nor was this the private opinion of some Priests and Je­suits only; but the definitive Sentence of several Popes, (their All the Popes San­ctions (they say) are Di­vine (Can. sic Omnes. 2. dist. 19.) as if Peter him­self had made them. And no wonder, seeing they tell us, That God by his Holy Spirit, speaks in the mouth of the Pope, Deus ipse, Spiritu suo, per Ora Pontificum loquitur. Pet. Matthaeus J. C. Lugdun. Praefat. praefixa Corp. Ju­ris Can. à se Edito, Fran­cof. 1590. Infallible and Supream Judges) publickly declared, and (that we may be sure they [Page 234] are obligatory at Rome) amongst other Papal De­crees referr'd into the Body of their Canon Law, Jul. 2. Conc. Late­ran. 5. Generali, appro­bante Concilio. Sess. 5. a­pud Binium. Tom. 9. p. 48. Col. 1. F. 2. A. confirm'd by Gregory the Thirteenth, and by their General Councils (the fifth Lateran, and that of Trent) Commanded to be obeyed, Tanquam Divina In­spiratione Edita, & Tanquam Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. De Reformat. c. 20. p. 624. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Dei Praecepta. Now the Papal Sentences or Decrees I mean, are 1. That of Pope Can. Omnium. 46. Causa. 23. Quaest. 5. Nicolas to the French Army: wherein the Pope tells them, That if any of them were slain in that War against the Insidels, that is, (as Cardinal Turrecremata ad dictum Canoncm. Turrecremata explains it) against the Hereticks, Heaven Regna illi Coel [...]stia minime negabuntur. should not be deny'd them: They should be sure of that. But the Lemma or Summa­ry prefix'd to the Canon In Certamine quod Contra Infideles (Haereti­cos) geritur quisquis mori­tur Coeleste Regum meretur. says, That those Soul­diers who faithfully fought against the Hereticks, if a­ny one of them were slain in the sight, He should me­rit Heaven. Murdering Hereticks, was (in the Popes Opinion) a meritorious Work, and if the Soul­diers could kill them, and take away their Tempo­ral Life here, they should (for that good Service to the Pope) gain to themselves, an Eternal Life hereafter. 2. Pope Can. Omni Timo­re. 9. Caus. 23. Quaest. 8. Leo (to the same purpose, and almost in the same words) Incourages a French Army to Omni timore Depo­sito contra inimicos San­ctae Ecclesiae virilitèr ag [...]re Studete, novit enim Omni­poteus, si quilibet vestrum morietur, quod pro veritate fidei mortuus est, & Ideo Proemium Coeleste conse­quitur. sight stoutly against the Enemies of the Faith, and of the Church, (you may be sure he means the Roman Church) and tells them, that they need not be any way affraid, to kill Hereticks and the Churches Enemies, for God knew, that if any of them died in that Service, it was for the true Faith, for which Heaven should be their Reward. So the Pope in that Canon. And because some of those Soul­diers might fear (as there was great reason they [Page 235] should) that the Persecuting those poor Christi­ans, whom the Pope call'd Hereticks, with Fire and Sword, might rather deserve punishment then a Heavenly Reward; John Semeca (the Glossator) tells us, That the Popes meaning was, Hortatur Papa, ut virilitèr pugnet contra Ini­micos Ecclesiae; & si qui pro­pter hoc moriatur, Non Poenam, sed Coeleste Prae­mium Consequetur. Glossa Ibidem. that (be­ing secured from Punishment) Heaven should be their Reward.

These, and such other Principles, must (of ne­cessity) be a great Incouragement to the Popish Party, who believe (though without, and in con­tradiction to Truth and Reason) the vast usurped Papal Power and Infallibility, to Execute the Popes Damnatory Bulls and Excommunications, and kill all Hereticks (even Kings and Emperors) ha­ving Heaven promised for doing it. This is ve­ry much, but there are more and greater Promi­ses made by the Pope, for killing Hereticks. For,

5. The Pope (out of his great Ability and Bounty) promises such Impious and Bloody Mur­derers of Hereticks, not Heaven only, but a higher Degree of Glory in it, and many other great Privi­ledges, to be injoy'd here, before they came to Heaven; and this Promise the Pope makes, not sin­gly by himself, but in, and with the consent of the greatest General Council Rome ever had. Innocent the Third is the Pope, and the Conc. Later. mag. num sub Innocentio. 3. Ann. 1215. fourth Lateran is the Council I mean; in which Ita Abbas Ursperg. in Chronico ad dictum Ann. 1215. Binius in Hist. Conc. Later. 4. praesixa. there were, above Twelve hundred Fathers. By the Autho­rity of this Can. 3. De Haere­ticis. Council, an Army was to be raised for the Ad Haereticorum Exterminium. Destruction of Hereticks (the poor Wab­denses) and they were to have the sume Illa Indulgentia & Privilegio muniti sunt, quod Accedentibus ad ter­rae Sanctae subsidium con­ceditur. Ibid. dicto Can. 3. Privi­ledges [Page 236] which were granted to those who fought against the Turks to recover the Holy Land. What those Priviledges were Pope Innocent (in his Const. Innocent. 3. 12. data Lateran. 19. Cal. Jan. 1215. Bull) tells us.

1. They were to be freed from A Collectis, Talliis, aliisque gravaminibus sunt Immunes. Bullae dictae. §. 10. all Taxes, Impositi­ons, and all Burdens whatsoever.

2. They were to be received into the Quorum Personas & Bonasua sub Beati Pe­tri & Nostrâ Protectione suscipimus. Ibidem. Protection of St. Peter and the Pope; there is nothing of God's Protection mention'd. The Pope (who sits in the Temple of God, 2. Thess. 2. 4. shewing himself that he is God) thought (and would have them think so too) that he was sufficient to protect them.

3. If they had borrowed any Money upon Use, and had solemnly sworn to pay it; yet the Pope Commands that they shall be freed both from their Si ad Praestandas usuras Juramento tenean­tur astricti, Creditores ut remittant Juramentum & Vsuras Compelli praecipimus. Ibid. §. 11. Oath, and paying any Vse.

4. If they went to kill and exterminate Hereticks in Person, and at their own Expences, then A Full Plenam peccatorum Veniam Indulgemus, & Sa­lutis Aeternae pollicemur Augmentum. Ibidem §. 17. In Bullario Romano, Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. p. 78. Col. 7. vide Matth. Paris. ad Ann. 1213. In Johanne. pag. 241. and Plenary Pardon of All their Sins here, and A Greater Degree of Glory hereafter, is (by the Pope and that great General Council) promised them.

By the Premisses I think it evident, that if any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects (after her Damnati­on and Excommunication by the Pope) had by raising Arms against her publickly, or by Poyson or Pistol privately taken away her Life, it had nei­ther been Rebellion, Treason, nor Murder, but an innocent Action; And that not one of those which Aristotle calls [...], Naturae Mediae, and In­different, which are morally neither good nor bad; but (in the Judgment of the Church of [Page 237] Rome, and upon those her approved Principles) it had been an Action Morally Good, nay, (which is far more) Meritorious: For which they should have Remission of All their Sins here, and not only Hea­ven, but (in it) A higher Degree of Glory hereafter: And if it happened, that any of them miscarried in this their meritorious Act of killing Heretical Kings, and were (according to their desert) hang'd for Treason, then (with the Pope and his Party) they pass for Martyrs, and as such, shall be ho­nour'd, and highly commended to Posterity. I wrong them not, Ribadeneira the Jesuit (to omit many others) in a Catalogus Scrip­torum Religionis Socie­tatis Jesu; Auctore Pet. Ribadeneira, Ejusdem Societ. Theol. Antverp. 1613. Book Licenced by the Ferdinandus Lu­cero in Censura Libro praefixa, Madritif, 17. Sept. 1607. Vice-Provincial of Toledo, approved by the Bishop of Lavin. Torrentius in Oda ad Societatem Libr. praefixa. Antverp, and Gravium doctorum­que hominum Judicio Pro­batus. Ferd. Lucero indicta Censura. other Grave and Learned Men (as they are there call'd) I say, in this Book he has a Dicti Libri. p. 357. 358. &c. Century of Martyrs of his Society; and amongst them, reckons Ibid. p. 366. Campian, Ibid. p. 371. Walpoole, Ibid. p. 372. Southwell, In supplemento addictam Cent [...]riam. pag. 375. Garnett, Ibidem. Oldcorne, &c. and calls them Martyrs; who were Legally Con­vict here, and Justly Executed as Impious Traitors. God Almighty preserve our Gracious King from the Traiterous and Pernicious Conspiracies of those men, who (by a strange delusion) believe such Principles, and call Impious Traitors Holy Martyrs.