2. c. 15. and Index lib. prohibit Res 4. forbid people to read it tho' in several places of the Old and New Testaments there be an express command to read it which for brevity sake I shall not quote only in my way I shall take notice of an Interpretation of the words in Psalm 91.13 Thou shalt tread upon the Lyon and Adder the young Lyon and Dragon shalt thou trample under feet a Prophesy relating to our Lord and Saviour yet Pope Alexander the III. whilst he in the Porch of St. Marks Church in Verice was with his Foot treading upon the Neck of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa caused the words to be pronounced with a loud Voice to which the Emperor as bad an Interpreter as the proud Pope was of Scripture answered non tibi sed Petro this was not said to thee but to Peter whereunto the reply was Et mihi Petro to me and to Peter Before this Holy Word they prefer or at least make of an equal Authority their Traditions their own â—nventions and Forgeries For Madam give me eave to say That the Church of Rome is a great Impostor and hath been proved such by several Divines both Forreigners and our own yet Bellarmin in the same Book and Cardinal du Perron against Tilenus are for Traditions contrary to so many places of Scripture whereof some are quoted in the Margin (d) Deut. 12.32 Exod. 25.40 What things soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it and St. Paul saith (e) Gal. 1.8 9. If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have precahed let him be accursed the word in the Original signifies besides what we have Preached there ought to be no dimunition addition or alteration But Madam to avoid prolixity which I see an enumeration of many of their Errors would unavoidably engage me in I shall in few words say their forbidding at certain times to eat some sorts of Meats when Gods Word in so many places speaks against it and that as well as the prohibition for Priests to Marry is called (f) 1 Tim. 4.1 2. Heb. 13.4 Doctrine of Devils when the Apostle calls Marriage Honourable and the Bed undefil'd How dare they to command that which God hath forbidden or to forbid that which God hath instituted approved and commanded Pope Pius the II. was so sensible of the unreasonableness of this as to say that if Priests for good cause had been forbidden to Marry for a better they should now Marry (g) Matt. 8.14 We Read in the Word how Peter whom they so much pretend to follow * Act. 21.8 9. and others among the Apostles and Evangelists were Married After this what shall we say of Campeggio †1 Cor. 9.5 one of the Pope's Legates at the Council of Trent who openly maintained there that 't is better for a Priest to keep a Whore than to Marry Their Mediators of Intercession are an Injury to the Lord Jesus The Error of Transubstantiation is contrary to Scripture Sense and Reason and attended with Idolatry And now Madam I shall be more plain than I was once meerly out of respect for you when as you may remember a Pragmatical Priest at Table vexed some Body whom you know and with a Brazen Face denied the Romanists to Worship Images and other Creatures for 't is known how all your Priests are downright Idolaters first they make their Wafer God for saith one of them (h) Gab. Biel. Can. Miss 4. He who Created me without me is now Created by me I say the Priest first makes his God then falls down and Worships it and at last Eats it up Is not this as great an Idolatry as can be to Worship a Creature of his own making The place where our Saviour speaks of false Christs is remarkable (g) Matt. 24.23 26. If any man shall say unto you lo here is Christ or there believe it not or behold he is in the secret chambers or little places which they have above their Altars where under Lock and Key they keep their Idol God believe it not What manner of God is the Wafer God of Papists of one or few minutes standing which by the pronouncing of five Latin Words tho' in the Text there be but four This is my Body is as it were by a Magical Vertue changed into the substance of Christ's Body and so with them becomes God and as such is by them adored What a poor Idol God is this which cannot preserve it self from being eaten up by Dogs Rats Mice Spiders and the like Vermin and if it doth but slip out of the Priests Hand when he holds it is like Dagon before the Ark broken in pieces And the Priest when such an accident happens as it doth sometimes in the Street with a Rope about his Neck to shew how for his Idolatry he deserves to be Hanged doth scrape up the Crumbs with the Dirt when it happens to fall into 't and lays it up Of this Wafer-God may well be said what Elijah in a mocking way said of Baal He is a God who is either talking or pursuing or he is in a journey or he sleepeth and must be awaked For let the Popish Priests as well as Baal's cry from Morning till Evening as loud as they can there shall be no Voice nor any to Answer because the Wafer-God is as much a Dumb Idol as Baal's Image was 1 King 18.26 27. Upon this matter of the Wafer-God I must not omit taking notice of a thing which gives their Transubstantiation and Corporal Eating of Christ's Body a deadly blow and that with a Weapon of their own for in a French Translation of the Bible Printed in Antwerp by Martin L'Empereur in 1534 with Charles V. his License Dated Brussels the 21st of November 1533 in the 6th Chap. of John's Gospel over against these words Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you There is a Marginal Note in these words To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood is to believe in him whereby their pretended Corporal Manducation is quite overthrown and it perfectly agrees with the Doctrine of all Reform'd Churches As to the taking away the Cup from the People in the Sacrament 't is positively contrary to what our Saviour said (k) Matt. 26.27 Drink ye all of it and one of the Evangelists observes how they all drank of it and the Canon of the Council of Constance against it doth them more harm than good for in the Preface they own thus Licet Christus instituerit c. that is (l) Mar. 14.23 Tho' Christ instituted and gave after Supper the Sacrament in both kinds to his Disciples and tho' in the Primitive Church it was Administred in the like manner yet the Council for certain reasons doth command that the Sacrament be otherwise Administred
not to my purpose to follow Paul in his Journeys nor to speak of his abode in several places as a year and a half at Corinth Acts 18.11 three years at Ephesus chap. 20.31 c. we shall bring him up to Jerusalem where upon the account of an uproar against him he fell into the hands of the Romans when Faelix was Governour of Judea and Glaudius Lysias chief Captain in Jerusalem and he (b) Acts 23. was kept a Prisoner till Portius Festus came into Foelix's room Acts 24.27 and having been heard by him and appealed unto Caesar was soon after sent to Rome where he arrived in the year 58. and was Martyr'd in the year 68. which was the 10th after Now as to Peter undeniably he and Paul were at Jerusalem at the time of the Synod in the year 48. as observed before and they would have them both to have been Martyr'd in Rome in 68 that is 20 years after yet they assert Peter to have been Bishop of Rome for 25 years so that there are plainly 5 years discount besides the time that he might have spent in and about Judea for after that as I already mark'd we find him in Antioch as for Paul he was brought to Rome but 10 years after which was but 10 before his Martyrdom which in case Peter had come thither about the same time had lessen'd in all 15 of the 25. Peters first Epistle was written to the Jews strangers scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithinia from Babylon in the 56th year of our Lord which was but 12 before his death his second Epistle to the same Jews is supposed to have been written in 67. that is a year before his death which he therein speaks of as near at hand (c) 2 Pet. 13.14 there being no place named we may well suppose it to have been written from the same whence the other was yet therein no mention of Rome no salutation thence no mention of Paul as being there tho' he therein speaks of him chap. 3.15 But to leave off Chronology after the Synod of Jerusalem Paul doth mention Peters being in Antioch but we find no where that he went or so much as purposed to go to Rome which being a place of the Gentiles he had no call to invite him thither but as already observ'd we find his first Epistle written from Babylon a City so remote from Rome for he gives the salutation of that Church 1 Pet. 5.13 except they would have Rome to be called Babylon as we read it is in the Book of the Revelation but on such occasions the Names of places are set down as properly they are That Paul was at Rome we read it in Gods Word but no such thing of Peter is it likely that he was 25 years Bishop of Rome and yet no sign at all of his being there I say if ever he was there it must be either before Paul came thither or after for with him he went not not before because certainly some mention would have been made of him we read how when some of the Brethren in Rome had heard of Paul and his company Acts 28.15 they came thence to meet them as far as Apppii forum and the three taverns yet not a word of Peter if he had been among them he being so considerable would have been named well but if it had been too much for him to go so far as to meet a Fellow Apostle who once (d) Gal. 1.18 went up to Jerusalem to see him and abode with him 15 days and so was no Stranger to him what 's the reason when Paul was come to Rome he came not to see him if he had then been at Rome doubtless Paul would have gone to visit him and not forgotten him when (e) Act. 28.17 he called the chief of the Jews together and gave them an account of the cause of his coming thither if then Peter had been Bishop in Rome the Jews would not have gone altogether without his knowledge and their answer shews that Peter was not there for (f) Ver. 21.22 they said unto him we neither received Letters out of Judea concerning thee neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee but we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest for as concerning this sect we know that every where it is spoken against If Peter had been at Rome Paul and his Doctrine about the Gospel of Christ could not have been such a Stranger and unknown to them let the rest of the Chapter be Read and 't is said v. 30. that Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house and received all that came in unto him What all this while not a word of Peter we look upon Luke as an exact Writer who in his Book of the Acts mentions so many other particulars and who all that while attended on Paul and would he have omitted making some mention of Peter if at that time he had been in or about Rome Therefore we must conclude he was not there before Paul's coming Neither came he thither after for Paul in those Epistles he hath Written from Rome to the Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians II. to Timothy and to Philemon which contain several Salutations from Men inferiour to Peter yet not a word of him if he had been there Paul would have acquainted him with his Writing as he did others whose Salutations he mentions then Peter would not have failed to speak in their own words to have sent his Apostolical Blessing as now Popes do Paul's Epistle to the Romans is accounted to have been written within the 56th Year of our Lord and 12 Years before his and Peter's Death Certainly if Peter had then been Bishop of Rome according to their computation of 25 Years he must need have been there 13 Years before and if in Rome at that time how came it to pass that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans among his Salutations to so many much inferiour to Peter omitted him When the whole Chap. ib. is almost full of the Names of those whom he doth Salute and begins with a Wife and a Husband of whom we Read Acts 18.2 3. who by their Occupation were Tent Makers and he being of the same Craft wrought with them Of these he saith to the Romans v. 3. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus Certainly if Peter had been in Rome and being an Apostle in that Epistle Paul would have taken notice of him Therefore we look upon 't as a meer Forgery that Peter for 25 Years together was Bishop of Rome for it had been contrary to the Office of the Apostles which was not to settle in one place but to go over the World to Preach the Gospel as we Read of Paul who from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum fully Preached the Gospel of Christ Rom. 15.19 according to the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost the Apostles
divided the Work among themselves as we Read James Cephas and John do with Paul and Barnabas Gal. 2.9 So all went into several parts of the World which in antient Records are named as to Peter about whom is the Question (g) Euseb l. 3. c. 1. the Ecclesiastical Histories say that he a long time Preached the Gospel to the Jews in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Bithynia and Asia whom he did write to as we have it in his (h) 1 Pet. 1.1 first Epistle so that if ever he went to Rome 't was at the most only about the latter end of his Life But what Paul saith is very remarkable (i) 2 Tim. 4.16 At my first answer no man stood with me but all men forsook me Certainly if Peter who for the same cause laid down his Life had been there he would not have forsaken him but this is a proof he was not there What Romanists say of a Contest between Peter and Simon the Sorcerer and several other things to the like purpose is all fabulous I know in Rome they shew some places with pretty Stories of their own Invention as of Peter's Prison and of his meeting with Christ when stealing out of that City to avoid Martyrdom he asked him Domine quò vadis Lord whither goest thou and the answer Romam ut ibi iterum Crucifigar To Rome there again to be Crucified all forged and by Tradition transmitted to these very times So that all this well considered it doth not in the least appear that Peter came to Rome since Paul was brought thither and never as we may conclude according to what they say that both suffered there at the same time This Truth Blondel one well known for being versed in the antient Ecclesiastical History had promised the French National Synod at Charenton which thereupon encouraged with dispensing him from his usual Pastoral Duties invincibly to prove and whilest People were in expectation to see that Work of his come forth instead of his promised Book having as inform'd by a Worthy Learned and Ingenious Man who had known him Named M. la Sigogne Ingrand of Poictiers whom in my way through that Country I happened to be acquainted with been gained by Cardinal Richelieu he published his Book about Pope Joan. After what I said the supposed Primacy of Peter is come to nothing and consequently the Supremacy of Popes and Church of Rome thereupon grounded is blown up So that one Pillar being pull'd down the other namely the Infallibility cannot stand and therein to proceed I shall alter the order of my discourse for in the matter of Supremacy I began against their Superstructure before I meddled with the Foundation that is I shewed how the pretended Supremacy of the Romish Church is but a Chymera and then that Peter had no Superiority over his Fellow Apostles nor Dominion over God's Heritage for indeed all the Power which the Lord hath given his Ministers is not to Curse and Anathematize as Popes and Councils have taken upon them to do which is contrary to the Pattern and Rule given by the Apostles in the Synod of Jerusalem but as Paul one of the chief of them declares in several places that (k) 2 Cor. 13.10 Power is to edification and not to destruction But now I intend by the Grace of God to demonstrate first that Peter was not Infallible and then that in the Romish Church is no such Infallibility as they pretend to be derived to 't from Peter's However we own that Peter's Doctrine what he Preach'd and whatsoever is written in his Epistles is infallibly true for what he speaks of how (l) 2 Pet. 1.21 in old time holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost is true of him and of the other Apostles but this Infallibility is lodged not in their Persons but in their Doctrine it did not lye in Peter but in the Guide who directed him the Holy Ghost Now the promise of Christ that (m) Mat. 16.18 the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is to be understood of a freedom from Destruction but not from Error seeing himself foretold of (n) Chap. 24.24 false Christs and false Prophets that shall arise and shew great signs and wonders And even in his School which was the Figure of the Church was a Judas a Traytor and so have his Apostles Prophecied of Heresies in the Church and of grievous Wolves that should enter into 't (o) Act. 20.29 30. even among themselves should men arise speaking perverse things Farthermore it ought to be taken notice of how great a mistake it is in the Romanists to apply unto Peter what our Saviour said (p) Mat. 16.18 Vpon this rock I will build my Church He meant not Peter's Person but the Confession he had made of him that he was the Christ the Son of the living God The thing is plain enough if we consider the occasion of the discourse which was this who Christ was Peter said Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God Now this truth owned by Peter namely that the Lord Jesus is the Son of the Living God the Church of Christ is built upon for upon Christ is the Church founded (q) 1 Cor. 3.11 And other foundation can no man lay saith Paul than that is laid which is Jesus Christ Besides that no where in Scripture Peter is call'd a Rock (r) Chap. 10.4 but the Lord Christ is therefore 't is a gross Error to misapply to Peter that which belongs to Christ This very Truth what Christ was Peter of himself could not know for saith our Saviour Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven v. 17. and indeed this is the Fundamental Truth of Christian Religion that Christ is the Son of the Living God But before I leave that Text I must take notice of another Error which the Romish Church would ground upon it 't is this that the Power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven namely of binding and loosing was bestowed only upon Peter when it also was upon the rest of the Apostles which were a Collective Body Now to find out the truth of what I say we must look upon the 13. Vers of this Chap. 16. of Mat. When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi he asked his disciples saying whom do men say that I the son of man am and they said some say that thou art John the Baptist some Elias and others Jeremias or one of the Prophets Now seeing none of these Opinions of Men about him were true he asked their Opinion for he saith unto them but whom say ye that I am The Question is put to all his Disciples ye So Peter in whom we commonly find a readiness to speak as may be an effect of his temper answered here in the name of all thou art Christ the Son of the Living God whereby he shewed