Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you And again Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Here I observe 1. That the Apostles in their first Mission were sent to the Jews and them only But now their Commission is Inlarged and they are Equally sent every one as much as any one to all Nations says Matthew To All the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Eusebius Explains it says St. Mark Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae Orbis Termini The whole World was their Diocese every ones Jurisdiction Extended so far and Peter's could not extend no further 2. For the Persons they were to Preach to they were Every Man in the World It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature every Rational Creature who if Infancy and Infirmity hinder'd not was capable They were to Convert Pagans and make them our blessed Saviour's Disciples and Sheep and then feed them with the Word and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Matthew Convert and make them Disciples and then Baptize and Teach them to observe whatever I have Commanded you Those words Feed my sheep on which without any just Reason they would build Peter's Supremacy contain only an Indefinite Proposition which as every one who understands Logick must Confess is only equivalent to a Particular But here the Commission given by our blessed Saviour to every Apostle as well as Peter is expresly Vniversal Preach to every Creature That is Feed All my sheep This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Roman Catholick Confesseth and fully proves it Only to save the Popes and his own Credit he says That to call General Councils belong'd only to Peter and the Pope by their Supremacy and not to any other But this is gratis dictum and an evident Untruth For the Pope by no Law of God or Man has or ever had Power to call any General Council And for many Ages never pretended to it which I only say now and when there is a Convenient time can and will make it Good In the mean time I think 't is certain either 1. That by those words Feed my sheep on which they build the Popes and Peters Supremacy our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supream Power to call General Councils that by them he might feed his Sheep Or 2. That the Apostles and Primitive Christians in their times knew no such thing For 1. When a Controversie arose at Antioch about Circumcision they send not to Peter as supream Head of the Church desiring him to call a Council but to the Apostles and Elders Had they known and believ'd that Peter had been Invested with such Power and Supremacy as is now pretended it had been Civility and Duty in them to have sent to him in the first place But they send to the Apostles and Elders without any notice taken of what they knew not Peter's Prerogative 2. It neither does nor can appear that Peter call'd that Council 3. Nor did he as Head and President of the Council speak first but the Question was much disputed before Peter spoke any thing 4. Nor did Peter after the Question was debated give the Definitive Sentence For 't is Evident in the Text That James the Less Son of Alphaeus and Bishop of Jerusalem gave the Definitive Sentence which both Peter and the whole Council acquiesc'd in 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch to signifie what he and the Council had done but the Apostles and the whole Church chose and sent their Messengers 6. Nor are the Letters sent in Peter's Name or any notice taken of any Primacy or Prerogative of his above the other Apostles No the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is The Apostles Elders and Brethren send Greeting 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name as made or confirm'd by him more than any other Apostle 8. Nay the Apostles send Peter on a Message to Samaria and he obeys and goes which had been a strange piece of Presumption had either he or they known his now pretended Monarchical Supremacy 9. So far were those Primitive Christians from knowing or acknowledging the now pretended Monarchical Supremacy of Peter that even in the Apostles times and Presence they question and call him to an Account for his Actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disceptabant adversus illum says the Vulgar Latin tanquam valde offensi expostulabant says Chrysostom And honest John Ferus a Roman Catholick tells us That he was Compell'd to give a Reason of his Actions to the Church nor was Peter offended at it because he knew that he was not a Lord but Minister of the Church But now as Ferus there goes on the Case is alter'd for wicked Popes as though they were Lords and not Ministers will not be Question'd for any thing or reprov'd Had the Canon Law been then in force which his pretended Successors have approved and by their Supream Authority publish'd he might have told those who Question'd him That he was to judge all men and none him nor was he to be reprov'd by any mortal man though by his Impiety and ill Example he carried thousands to Hell with him 10. Nay St. Paul does not only question St. Peter's Actions but to his face before the People publickly condemn them and that justly for he says he was to be blamed which he neither would nor indeed well could have done had he known Peter to have been so far his Superior as to have by Divine Institution a Monarchical Jurisdiction and Power over him 11. Lastly St. Paul himself tells us That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles not to Peter James or John whom elsewhere he reckons the chiefest I know they say That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office but Inferior to Peter as he was Supream Pastor over the Apostles and the whole Church But this is gratis dictum and indeed a begging of the Question and taking that for granted which never was nor ever will be proved However 't is certain 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter had an Vniversal supream Authority and Jurisdiction in any Part of the World and over any Christians wherever they came 2. That this largeness of their Jurisdiction was Apostolical and Personal to themselves which they neither did nor could transmit to their Successors whose Jurisdiction was limited to some City and Territory and that particular Place the Care and Charge whereof was committed unto them as Ephesus was to Timothy and Creet to Titus 3. Our Adversaries confess this as to all the other Apostles but for Peter they say He transmitted his Supremacy and Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church to his Successor and that by the Institution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right If they could prove this the Controversie were
Rome Observe 1. That Eusebius says indeed that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and then by our blessed Saviour's Command as they say went to Rome But so far is he from saying that he was seven years Bishop there that he expresly says That Euodius was the First Bishop of Antioch 2. When he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome and refers us to what Eusebius says ad Ann. 2. Claudij The man who understood no Greek is miserably mistaken as Universally he is when he meddles with Greek Authors unless their Translations be true for Eusebius in his Greek Text as all know and may see has no such thing as Five and twenty years nay he does not so much as say that he was Bishop of Rome at all much less that he was Five and twenty years Bishop there But the Latin Copies Interpolated and Corrupted as thousands others are by Roman Arts deceived him But to let this pass Baronius says That Peter was Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Five and twenty of Rome So that in the whole he was Two and thirty years Bishop in Syria and Italy and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was Anno Christi 34. to which if 32. be added the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome the product will be 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a gentile-Gentile-Church and his Martyrdom was 13. Neronis that is Anno Christi 68. or as Baronius Computes 69. whence by this their Account it evidently follows that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom about two years only excepted Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a Gentile-Church Which is 1. Manifestly untrue and inconsistent with what is said of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with his Commission in which the care of the Circumcision was concredited to him by our blessed Saviour and with his Solemn Agreement with the Apostles to go to the Circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles And 2. It is without any the least ground in Scripture by which it neither does nor can appear that ever Peter was at Rome so much as for one Day much less that he was Bishop there Five and twenty years Nor can it appear in Scripture that ever he was at Antioch save once nor is there any mention of any thing he then did there save that he dissembled and was justly reprehended for it by St. Paul whereas it is evident in Scripture that St. Paul was at Antioch for a whole year at one time constituted the Church there confirmed them afterwards in the Faith and ordain'd Elders to govern them staid there a long time and continued there preaching the Gospel and yet notwithstanding all this if we will believe them Peter was Bishop there and not Paul The truth is though it be Evident that Paul as Apostle did all Episcopal Acts there yet 't is certain that neither he nor Peter was particularly Bishop of that or any other place 3. It is utterly incredible that Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church as they pretend should for Two and thirty years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that while the Apostles liv'd and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one Syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in those two and thirty years no nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who liv'd long in Antioch and longer in Rome and had opportunity nay had it been true a necessity to mention it He had need of a strong Faith who can believe this for my part Credat Judaeus Apella c. 4. And as for Peter's being Seven years Bishop of Antioch and Twenty five of Rome it is further Considerable That the greatest Patrons of this Popish Position although they agree in the Conclusion that Peter was so long Bishop at those two places yet they Contradict each other and the Truth and by their own Positions to save their Adversaries that Labour utterly Overthrow and Confute that Position they indeavour to prove This Evidently appears in this Case as it is stated by Onuphrius Baronius and Bellarmine 1. Onuphrius tells us That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea for Nine years next after our blessed Saviour's death that is till the year of Christ. 43. after this he was Bishop of Antioch Seven years to the year of our blessed Saviour 50. And then Five and twenty years heâ— sat Bishop of Rome that is by his own Computation till the year of Christ 75. So that by this Account Peter was Bishop of Rome Anno Christi 75. And yet he there says That Peter died Anno Christi 69. And then by his Calculation Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death 2. Baronius states the Question thus Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi 39. and was Bishop there Seven years that is till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says that from Antioch Peter went to Rome and sate there Bishop Five and twenty years that is till the year 71. And so by his own account Peter must be Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead For the same Baronius tells us that Peter died Anno Christi 69. And though this Account of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome be not only Erroneous but to all Intelligent Persons Ridiculous yet Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius but to Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius c. whose Opinions Baronius endeavours to confute In short as there is no ground in Scripture that Peter ever was at Rome so that he was Twenty five years Bishop there neither Scripture nor purer Antiquity affords them any proof or probability Eusebius his Greek Chronicon basely corrupted in a Latin Version of it about Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour being that they must rely upon 5. Our Adversaries had ill luck when they made Peter first Bishop of Rome attributed the Supremacy to him and that he might have it made the Pope his Successor For had they chosen Paul in stead of Peter they might have had far more though not enough to prove and that out of express Scripture both Paul's Supremacy and the Popes Succession to him For these following Particulars every one of them may evidently be proved out of Scripture 1. That the Romans were Gentiles 2. That Paul by our blessed Saviour's Appointment was the Apostle of the Gentiles Peter was not but of the Jews 3. Paul
enough tells us That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All And Irenaeus gives the Reason of it His Sufferings were more He planted more Churches He writ more Epistles then they all his being Fourteen and all the rest but Seven and they in respect of his short ones too which then were and ever since have been and while the World stands will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy and for St. Paul's Preference before him at least his Independence upon Peter as the Supream Monarch of the Church is That he tells the Corinthians That the care of All The Churches lay upon him Nor that only but that he made Orders and Constitutions for All those Churches which they were bound to observe So I Ordain saith he in All the Churches So our English truly renders it I know the Vulgar Latin which the Trent Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick renders it otherwise So I teach in all Churches but the word there signifies not to teach but properly to Ordain and Legally Constitute Define and Command So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text and therefore he says That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches was giving them a Law which they were to obey So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture and that by himself who best knew and was Testis idoneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Witness beyond all Exception 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All whereas in Scripture no such thing is said of Peter or any other Apostle Upon consideration of the Premises some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul A Preacher to the whole World So Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places as of James at Jerusalem John in Asia Peter and Paul at Antioch c. He adds concerning Paul That he did particularly Officiate to the whole World And to the same purpose Theodoret Expounding the words of the Apostle That the care of All the Churches lay upon him He says That the sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul More than this cannot be said of Peter nor is there half so much said of him as of St. Paul in Scripture Had Peter told us That the care of All the Churches lay upon him and that He made Orders and Constitutions to be observed In All Churches both which are expresly said of St. Paul the Canonists and Popish Party would have had some pretence who now have none for Peter's Supremacy I urge not this to Ascribe to Paul that Supremacy we deny to Peter For neither had they nor any other Apostle any such thing but only to shew That St. Paul his Laboâ—s Sufferings the many Churches founded by him and His Canonical Writings consider'd may be thought not without reason a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church then St. Peter 2. But as it is and must be confess'd by Divines Ancient and Modern Protestants and Papists That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation and that Petra on which the Church is Built So there is also a Personal Foundation evidently mention'd in Scripture I mean Persons on whom the Christian Church is built And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour 2. His Apostles 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built is evident from the Scriptures before Cited Such a Rock as Peter neither was nor could be much less any of those they call his Successors For 1. Our blessed Saviour was and still is a Rock on which as Irenaeus tells us the Vniversal Church both before and since his coming into the World was built He was promised by God presently after the fall of Adam and then successfully by all the Prophets His Death and Passion was a Propitiation as well for the Sins of those who lived before as ours who live after it and those Promises of the Messiah were such as all the Patriarchs Prophets and Pious men before Christ did know and believe Nay if we believe Eusebius the Promises of the Messias were clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets though in a less degree and measure of clearness and their Belief and suitable Obedience such that though they had not the name yet they might truly be call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and so it was to all the Ancient Church by the Prophets who foretold them of the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd and yet he says that He preached No other Things then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come And this is a truth so manifest that to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers Peter Lombard and the Popish School-men writing De fide Antiquorum of the Faith by which the Saints before our blessed Saviour were saved they all say that they then as we now were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer The difference was 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo we in Christo Actu Exhibito 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming was more Imperfect and Implicit Ours since he is come and the Gospel clearly publish'd much more Perfect and Explicite This I say to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock on which the Church under the Old Testament was built and in this Particular such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was nor could be it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation on which the whole Christian Church is built even the Apostles themselves as well as others who all of them Peterâ— as well as Paul in respect of Christ who is the great Immoveable Rock which sustains the whole Building are Superstructions though otherwise in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching they are call'd Foundations yet only Secundary Foundations all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ So in the like Instance all the Apostles Peter as well as the rest were both Sheep and Shepherds 1. Sheep in respect of Christ who is the great and chief Shepherd My Sheep hear my voice says our blessed Saviour The Apostles did so when he call'd them they heard and obey'd him Again I lay down my life for my Sheep so he did for his Apostles else
1. Their many and monstrous Errors contradictory to sacred Scripture and the sense and belief of the Christian World for a thousand years after Christ our blessed Saviour which they approve and publickly receive as Articles of their Faith in their new Creed the Trent-Council and Roman Catechism Considering also their many Superstitions and stupid Idolatry professed and practised by them in their sacred Offices their Missal Breviary Horae B. Virginis their Ritual and Pontifical c. I say these things impartially considered they may be and really are Idolatrous Hereticks but 't is impossible they should be what they against greatest evidence pretend to true Catholicks 2. Considering the unchristian indeed Antichristian Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Party Excommunicating Cursing and Damning all Christians save themselves without and against that Charity which the Gospel requires and so Schismatically cutting off from the Body of Christ whole Kingdoms at a Clap as Pius the Fifth does in the following Bull which are things inconsistent with the Christian Temper and Charity of a true Catholick I say these things considered and that the Pope and his Party are really guilty of such uncharitable Actions dividing and violating the Vnion of the Church it evidently follows that they are so far from being true Catholicks that they are great and formal Schismaticks And therefore they must pardon me if in these Papers I do not call them what really they are not Catholicks and for the same Reason I do not call them Roman Catholicks For as it is neither reason nor sense to call him an English Gentleman who is no Gentleman at all or him a Sorbon Doctor who never saw Paris or ever had or desired that Degree so it is alike irrational to call him a Roman Catholick who really is an Erring Schismatick and no Catholick at all 5. I know some otherwise learned and pious Writers who say that those words Roman Catholick are inconsistent and imply a Contradiction as signifying a particular Universal But this I confess is a manifest mistake For not only particular Persons of which before but particular Churches in this or that City be it great or little have anciently and usually been call'd Catholick Churches without any Contradiction or Impropriety In an Epistle of a great Council at Antioch we find the Bishop of that City call'd a Catholick and that particular Church a Catholick Church So in the Subscriptions to Nazianzen's last Will and Testament Optimus Bp. of Antioch subscribes thus Optimus Bp. of the Catholick Church at Antioch and the rest of the Bishops who subscribe that Testament and they are six or seven use the same Form So Nazianzen subscribes himself Bishop of the Catholick Church in Constantinople Amphilochius Bishop of the Catholick Church in Iconium and so all the rest In the Appendix to the Theodosian Code Pope Vigilius begins his Encyclical Epistle thus Vigilius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae Bishop of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome So Pope Leo the Great and many more Bishops of Rome uses the very same form The Popes stiled themselves Catholicae Ecclesiae non Orbis sed Urbis Romae Episcopos The Antichristian stile of Universal Bishop as Pope Gregory the Great calls it was not yet usurped at Rome The Bishops of Rome then and their Church were Catholick and so was every Orthodox Bishop and his Church as well and as much as they Constantinople Iconium Antioch c. and their Bishops were as truly Catholick as St. Peter's Successor or Rome it self The truth is evidently this the Pope and his Party are in this nec Christi nec Petri sed Donati Successores they do not follow Peter or our blessed Saviour as they vainly bragg but that impious Heretick Donatus whose damnable Schism and Heresie they have espoused St. Augustin who well knew it tells us in several places That the Donatists assumed to themselves the Name of Catholick said that their Sect was the only true Church and so damn'd all other Christians and upon this Heretical Opinion they Schismatically separated from the whole Catholick Church The Pope and his Party with as little reason and charity do the very same thing they as the Donatists anciently Heretically affirm That they and they only are truly Catholicks and the only Members of the true Christian and Catholick Church and then Schismatically Seperate from Excommunicate and Damn all other Christians 6. And further that I may freely speak what I really believe I am so far from believing the Pope and his Party to be what they vainly pretend the only true Christian and Catholick Church that I do believe them and so did thousands before Luther and many whole Kingdoms and Provinces since to be Ecclesia Malignantium an Antichristian Sect and Synagogue in side highly erroneous and in facto as highly impious And the Pope so far from being Peter's Successor and our B. Saviour's Vicar-General that he is that man of Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Adversary of our blessed Saviour and the great Antichrist the Apostle speaks of who Exalts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Kings and Emperors This I hope will in part appear by what is said in the following Papers At present I shall desire the Impartial Reader who possibly may read this short Epistle and trouble himself no further to read what follows to consider That the Pope really and professedly does Exalt himself above all Kings and Emperors and so has this Mark of the Beast and Indelible Character of Antichrist That he does so Exalt himself will evidently appear thus 1. Pope Innocent the Third tells the Emperor of Constantinople and with prodigious Error and Impudence indeavours to prove it out of Scripture That the Pope is as much greater Then the Emperor as The Sun is greater Then the Moon So Innocent the third and that we may be sure his Successors liked it well Gregory the Ninth approves and refers it into the Body of Canon-Law And Greg. the Thirteenth approves it too and with the other Decretals confirms it for Law and 't is continued in all Editions of that Law ever since It is then certain and confess'd That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is call'd God above all Kings and Emperors and that he is far greater then they And if you inquire of the Proportion how much he is greater I say 2. That their approved and received Glosses on their Law with some difference of Opinion calculate how many times the Sun is greater then the Moon and then infer the Pope's Greatness above the Emperor And here 1. The Author of the Gloss Bernardus de Botono was the man a good Lawyer but sure I am no good Astronomer tells us ignorantly and ridiculously That the Sun is greater than the Moon and consequently the Pope greater than the Emperor Forty seaven times This is
Private Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta with great Insolence and without any Ground pretends to 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 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 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 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 others of the Popish Party follow him 2. They Corrupt the 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 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 Precedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their Canon Law in the best Editions of it Revised and Corrected by Pope Gregory XIII And 't is 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 Holy and Oecumenical Pope and Equal to the Angels c. This Title Oecumenical the Pope took kindly then though his Predecessor 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 â—lock of Christ. So 1. St. Paul tells us who from Miletum sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus I say Presbyters for Timothy who was their first Bishop was with Paul at 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 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 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
was two whole years at Rome Converted and Established a Church there but it cannot appear by Scripture that Peter was ever there 4. The Care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good government of All the Churches without any Authority Leave or Commission from Peter no such thing ever said of Peter either in Scripture or primitive and pure Antiquity 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans Peter did no such thing Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expresly told us 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed and Commission'd Peter to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and such were the Romans 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome Converting and Establishing a Church there 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans to Confirm them in that Faith he had preach'd amongst them I say had all these things been in Scripture expresly said of Peter our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would and with far more reason and probability might have asserted Peter's Supremacy and his Roman Episcopacy and that the Pope was and is his Successor But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter and every one of them expresly said of Paul it is Evident that there is far more reason and probability and that grounded upon express Scripture that Paul was Bishop of Rome and not Peter and so the Pope might be his Successor And yet our Adversaries reject Paul and will have Peter their first Bishop though some of them impiously say our blessed Saviour was their first Bishop That St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome notwithstanding all the former things said of him in Scripture we believe and know and willingly grant But on the other side to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture either in express terms as they are of Paul or by Equivalence or any just Consequence this we say is very irrational For in things Moral or Historical and of such we are now speaking which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration the highest Prudential Motives and Probabilities will and ought to carry the Assent of all wise men and therefore seeing it is deny'd and justly too that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome though the Probabilities grounded on Scripture that he was so be far greater then Peter can pretend to for our Adversaries to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome must be and is evidently irrational If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so But when they would magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy having no better Arguments they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome and his See and of some Priviledges which they take or mistake rather to be peculiar to the Popes such as these 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories and Canons is called Apostolicus 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. I confess that these and many such Particulars have been urged and as pertinent stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls their Decretal Constitutions and Epistles and generally by all their Party especially the Clergy Secular and Regular whose great and principal Interest it is to maintain the Papal Supremacy for if that fail they irrecoverably fall with it In some Centuries past while gross Ignorance and Tyranny benighted and overaw'd this Western Part of the World such Arguments did their Business For few could and the danger being very great few or none durst Answer them But after Luther arose and Learning reviv'd all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know that all the Arguments they did or could bring from such Topicks were not only Inconsequent but indeed impertinent and ridiculous That this may not be gratis dictum I shall indeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances and I hope Effect it that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges do or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy and Papal Monarchy they now so earnestly contend for And here 1. It is to be observed that the word Apostolicus which for some Ages last past the Pope has Assumed and his Flatterers given him as peculiar to himself was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops So Alcuinus Flaccus tells us That when a Bishop was Elected they sent him ad Apostolicum that he might Consecrate him The Learned Archbishop of Paris tells me this and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century in the time of Gregorius Turonensis who was made Bishop about the Year 572. but afterwards That Title was appropriated to the Pope Now I desire to know of our Adversaries how The Title being Appropriated to the Pope does make more for his Supremacy then it did for the Archbishops when it was common to them all 2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica we grant Because we are sure St. Paul though not as Bishop sate there But that Peter ever was there neither we nor our Adversaries are or can be sure But it is and by our Adversaries must be granted too That Jerusalem Antioch and other Churches besides Rome were Sedes Apostolicae and Ecclesiae Apostolicae and eo Nomine were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church But the Bishops of none of them then did or could pretend to any Supremacy much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy And why Rome should more then they when our Adversaries can and will give which as yet they never did any Just and Cogent Reason I shall submit Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches such as Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi Rome c. and tells us That Cathedrae Apostolorum the Chairs of the Apostoles were then in those Apostolical Churches That Bishops presided in them that if they had great Curiosity and Care of their Salvation they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Churches He sends them not all to Rome and Peter's Chair there But saith he if thou art near Macedonia thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to If in Asia Ephesus If in Achaia Corinth If thou art near Italy thou hast Rome to Address to He knew no Supremacy or Infallibility annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome more then to Paul's at Corinth or Philippi He directs them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them
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 pasâ—endos tradit Dicit enim pasce Oves non has aut illas fed pasce Oves meas Omniuâ—i ergo suarum Ovium curam illi dedit Ibid. §. 62. a 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. b Heb. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 1. Pet. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Heb. 13. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Act. 1. 17. 25. f 2. Cor. 4. 5. g 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 h Nicol. Regaltius in Observatione Galeata Notis suis ad Cypriani Opera praesixa i Vid. Cypr. Epist. 67. p. 128. 129. Edit Rigaltii Epist. 72. Ibid. p. 142. in Calâ—e dictae Epistolae c. Epist. 55. p. 95. k 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 essâ— Partes in Causa Novatiani peractâ jam in Africâ Cognitione damnâ—ti There lay no Appeal to the Pope as Superior to the Bishops of Africa Rigaltiâ—s in Notis ad 〈◊〉 â—â—stolam 55. p. 95. Notarum p. 77. 78. l Cyprian De Unitate Ecclesiae pag. 208. apud Rigaltium Hoc â—rant Caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Potrus Pari Consortio praediti honoris Potestatis sed Primatus Petro datur m Cyprian Epist. 55. ad Cornelium pag. 95. Ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam Principalem unde unitas exorta est n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quia Vrbs illa Imperaret Patres dederunt Privilegia Conc. Chalcedonense Can. 28. o Ad Ecclesiam Principalem Id est in Vrbe Principali Constitutam Rigaltius ad Epist. Cyprian 55. p. 78. Notarum p 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 Observ. 6. q Christus Catholicam Ecclesiam uni soli in terris Apostolorum Principi Petro PetrÃque Successori Rom. Pontiâ—ici in Potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernandam Ita Bulla dicta in principio r 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. s Cum in Petrì Cathedrâ sedeat ut Petri Successor Christique Vicarius in terris Vniversali Ecclesiae Praesidet Ibid Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. p. 391. t Matth. 10. 1. Mark 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. u Ibid. Matth. 10. 1. x 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. y Paul was there two whole years Act. 28. 30. writ them a long and excellent Epistle But 't is 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 z Matth 28. 19. 20. a Mark 16. 15. b Matth. 10. 5. 6. c Euseb. 1. 3. Demonstrat Evangelicae p. 136. and he has our blessed Saviour's word for it Matth. 24. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d 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. e 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. f Act. 15. 2. g Act. 15. 7. h Act. 15. 19. 20. 21. i Act. 15. 22. k Ibidem l 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. m Act. 16. 4. n Act. 8. 14. a Act. 11. 2. 3. b Petrus Apostolorum Primus rationem reddere Ecclesiae Cogitur nec indigne fert quia non Dominum sed Ministrum Ecclesiae se agere sciebat Ferus in Act. 11. 2. c Impijautem Pontifices Nunc
then found Peter there According to our Adversaries Computation in the year 51. Peter had sate Bishop in Rome about eight years and yet St. Paul neither found nor sought him at Rome where he was not but at Jerusalem where he was with the Jews who were Committed to his Charge and Cure 6. Lastly 'T is Evident St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews of which Babylon was the Metropolis And sure it is that when he says The Church of Babylon salutes you he intended as all men do who write Epistles of that Nature that they should know where he was and who they were who saluted them which was Impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome For at that time Rome neither was nor could be known to any by the name of Babylon no Author Sacred or Civil having ever call'd it so 'T is true St. John above Fifty years after callâ— Rome Babylon But he writing Mysterious Propheties spoke to use Eusebius's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used many Types Figures and Metaphors to express future things But that Peter 〈◊〉 writ no such Mysterious Prophetical Predictâ—ons but the plain Duties and Promises of thâ— Gospel should use such Types or Figures haâ—â— neither truth nor any probability By the Premisses I hope it may appear that it cannot be proved out of Scripture that ever Peter was at Rome 4. But let it be granted that it could be proved out of Scripture which is manifestly untrue that Peter was at Rome yet thence it will not follow that ever he was Bishop there much less for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended For 1. That he was Bishop of Rome or any place else there is not one syllable in Scripture and so from thence there can be no proof of his Roman Bishoprick And 2. If it be granted which is evidently untrue that it could out of Scripture be clearly proved that he was at Rome a longer time yet hence it does not follow that he was Bishop there For he was at Jerusalem Samaria Joppa c. as is evident in Scripture and yet our Adversaries neither do nor with any sense or reason can say that he was Bishop of all those places 3. Irenaeus an ancient and an approved Author expresly says That Peter and Paul Constituted Linus first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens after the Apostles was the third Bishop there After him Eusebius says the same thing That after the Martyrdom of Paul and Peter Linus was the first Bishop of Rome And again speaking of the Bishops of Rome he says That Linus was the first and Anencletus or Anacletus as he is usually call'd the second And though Eusebius say That Linus was Primus post Petrum the first Bishop of Rome after Peter yet his meaning is not that Peter was Bishop of Rome before him as is evident by what he says afterwards That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles Paul and Peter and by what Irenaeus said before him That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles For if this be good consequence Linus was first Bishop of Rome after Peter Ergo Peter was Bishop Rome too Then this in Irenaeus and Eusebius who both say it will be good Consequence also Clemens was third Bishop of Rome after Paul and Peter Ergo Paul and Peter were both Bishops of Rome The truth is that neither Consequence is good Irenaeus and Eusebius did indeed believe Paul and Peter Founders of the Roman Church but neither of them to be Bishops there which a Learned Roman Catholick evidently saw and publickly acknowledges By the way let me observe That Eusebius in two places here cited puts Paul before Peter and not only Eusebius a fallible Author but St. Paul himself puts James before Peter Now if Eusebius or St. Paul had known and believ'd St. Peter to have been what the Pope and his Party without any ground vainly Imagine the Supream Monarcâ— over the whole Church and the Apostles themselves it had been a great Affront and Injury to St. Peter and such an Incivility as St. Paul would not have been guilty of 4. And 't is yet more Considerable what St. Paul says in the place last cited For there we have these things certain in the Text 1. That Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision the Jews were Committed to him as his Charge and Cure as the Gentiles to Paul 2. It was our blessed Saviour who Commission'd both of them and appointed them those Provinces for none else could He only could assign them their Provinces who gave them the Apostolical Power to govern them Peter as our Adversaries say was Supream Monarch of the whole Church had no Superior but our blessed Saviour and so none else to Commission him or Appoint him his Province 3. Both of them till that time had diligently and with great Success effectually labour'd in their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles 4. By a mutual Agreement they consent and promise That Peter as he had before so for the future He should go to the Jews and make them his Charge and Cure and Paul to the Gentiles 5. And this Agreement was about the year of our Lord. 51. when according to our Adversaries Computation he was and had been Bishop of Rome Eight or Nine years 6. I desire then to know Whether Peter after this Consent and Agreement of the Apostles continued Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome as our Adversaries pretend he did or not If he did he contradicted his Commission which our blessed Saviour had given him to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and Neglected the Jews whom he had Concredited to his care and Committed to him as his proper Charge For to take the charge of the Gentiles and Jews too was not only against his Commission but against that Solemn Consent and Agreement of the Apostles before mention'd wherein it was agreed and promised That Peter should go not to Rome but to the Circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles Nor can it be credible that Peter would Act in Contradiction to his Commission and his Agreement so solemnly made with the Apostles But if at the time of that Agreement which was Anno Christi 51. he either was not which is most true Bishop of Rome or then left it then it evidently follows That he Continued not Bishop of Rome for Five and twenty years as is by our Adversaries with great confidence and no reason asserted 7. And this is further manifest from our Adversaries own Principles and Positions Baronius tells us That Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and at Rome five and twenty years And for this he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon By the way concerning what Baronius says of Peter's being Bishop for so many years at Antioch and