Sure and honest means for the conversion of all hereticks and wholesome advice and expedients for the reformation of the church / writ by one of the communion of the Church of Rome and translated from the French, printed at Colgn, 1682 ; with a preface by a divine of the Church of England.

Sure and Honest Means TO CONVERT ALL HERETICKS. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. (Book 1)

That the Papacy hath no Divine Title. The vanity and nulli∣ty of those which it draws from the Gospel.

WHosoever shall read the New Testament, will there find that Jesus Christ alone is establish∣ed as Head of the Church, and that it is not said of any other, that she should be his Body, or Believers his Members, that belonging to none but Jesus Christ, who is also the only Spouse of the Church, which would be adulterous should she sub∣mit to another; and this other could not be but an evil person, and a reprobate, since that in taking the quality of Spouse of the Church, he must renounce that of Son of the Church, and so could not have God for his Father, according to the Maxim, That he who hath not the Church for his Mother, hath not God for his Father. Now no one person can be the Head, the Spouse and Son of the Church at the same time. Nevertheless it is certain that the Popes do assume these Titles to themselves by a vanity which exceeds all folly, and without being able to produce any reason for it, Divine or Humane. But let us see what they say to maintain their pretensions.

They say that among the Jews one man only, viz. Aaron, had the conduct of Divine Service, and was Head of the Levites, and

that by consequence there ought to be in the Christian Church an Authority like unto this, Established over the whole Church; and that the Bishops of Rome perform the Functions of this charge. Whereupon there are many things to be said: First of all, it was not difficult for Aaron to acquit himself of this in so little a State as Judea, and in one only City of this State, which was Jerusalem, and in one only T••mple of that City; for it was not allowed to perform Divine Service, nor to Sacrifice elsewhere; whereas Chri∣stianity is at this time spread over the whole world, and therefore one single person only cannot perform these Functions every where. It is as if a man should say, that because France is well governed by one King, he might as well govern all the States of the habitable Earth; and yet it would be much more easie for him to do it, than for one Bishop to govern the whole Church, because (as it is well known) the Ecclesiastical Ministry cannot inflict Corporal punish∣ments upon Delinquents as the Civil Government may and does. Besides, Aaron was no way the Figure of the Bishops of Rome; for then the Type would have been more excellent than the Original; but he was the Figure of our Great and Soveraign High Priest Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Aaron was not the Monarch of the Levites, but as the Doge is at Venice; for according to all the Tal∣mudists, he was subject to the Jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrim, and to their Censure; whereas the Popes pretend to be not only the Monarchs of the whole Earth, but particularly of all the Cler∣gy. And besides all this, there was an express institution of God for this charge, and for the person of Aaron, and of his Successors. Whereas there is nothing like it for the Papacy, nor for the persons of those who exercise it. We see in the Old Testament the Institution of Aaron's Charge with many Ceremonies for his Installment, and for his anointing; many Ordinances for the Exercise of this Charge, and for the Succession; many Chapters which speak of the Subordination of Priests and Levites. But on the contrary we find not one word in the Gospel of this pretended charge of Uni∣versal Head of the Church, of Vicar-General of Jesus Christ, and Successor of St. Peter, nor any thing that hath any relation to it; and yet it ought to have been there clear and evident, since that this Ministry was to be of an extent a thousand times greater, and the thing in it self is prodigious, and appears quite contrary to the nature of the Messias his Kingdom, and to the Gospel. We see several Orders of Ministers of the Gospel, there

often spoken of; but not one word that can any ways relate to the Pope; when surely that was the place to have spoken of it, especially if it be necessary to Salvation to be subject to him, as they would have it, and if he hath the power as they would per∣swade us, as well over the Temporality as the Spirituality of the whole world; St. Paul who without question was of as great abi∣lity as the Pope, was not of these peoples humour, who pretend to govern the whole Church; since he who had not the thousandth part of Christians to take care of, as the Pope would have accor∣ding to their supposition, declares that no Mortal man was sufficient to perform every thing that was necessary to be done in it, and that he was himself overwhelmed with the care he took for all the Churches. Nor had St. Peter the courage of our good Popes, who believe themselves capable of governing the whole Church, (and they might do it without difficulty after the method they take) since he agreed with St. Paul, that St. Paul should go toward the Gentiles, and he towards the Jews, and so they parted the Ministry between them. At least the Popes, after Aarons example, ought to meddle only in Ecclesiastical, and not in Secular affairs, as they do, pretending to Lord it over the whole world; for we see that Aaron applied himself only to the Functions of his Charge, and that in things Temporal and Civil he was subject to Moses, and left the Absolute direction of them to him.

Instead of imitating Aaron, the Head of the Levites, in his Modesty, the Popes pretend to be Lords not only of the Temporality, but of the Spirituality, of all the States of the world, and will in this be Vicars of Jesus Christ, tho he declared that his Kingdom was not of this world, tho he taught his Disciples, that he among them who would be the first, should be the last, though he fled away when they would have made him a King, tho he payed Tribute to the Princes of the world, when he was himself Lord both of Hea∣ven and Earth; tho he expresly forbad his Disciples to bear rule over any one whatsoever.

The Popes notwithstanding this, will govern, and pretend that our Saviour did amiss when he spoke thus, and that they know better than he how to improve the rights of his Prerogative. For my part, I believe that such a King as Jesus Christ who holds the Earth in his hand, according to the Prophet's expression, who up∣holds all things by the power of his word, as St. Paul says, who knows the hearts of all men, and governs the motions of all the

creatures; who is Almighty, who knows and sees every thing, without whom no man can have neither life, motion, nor being; such a King, I say, hath no need of a Vicar-General for the Spiri∣tual. Government of the Church, because he is present in all places, no more than an Husband needs a Vicar for his Wife, or a living Father for his Children; and that he himself assureth us that where two or three are gathered together in his name, there will he be in the midst of them. If he hath a Vicar-General, he can be no other than the Holy Ghost. We also see that when he was upon the point of leaving his poor Disciples who were afflicted by reason of his ap∣proaching departure from them, he tells them not, I will leave you the Pope to guide and govern you, which had been but a poor consola∣tion: But, I will send you the Comforter, who shall lead you in all truth.

And if we consider in what the administration of this Spiritual Kingdom doth consist, we shall clearly see that no one mortal man can be the Vicar-General of it: Can one only man preach the Go∣spel, and administer the Sacraments all the world over? They tell you, that he will make it be done by others, (would to God the Popes would do so) but these Delegated Preachers would be thus the Popes Vicars, who pretends to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and sometimes of St. Peter; which cannot be according to all the Canonists, who maintain that one Vicar cannot make another; be∣sides, that the Ecclesiastical Ministry, properly speaking, cannot be subdelegated to Vicars; for whosoever discharges it, ought always to perform it in Preaching, or Ex••rcising the other Episcopal Fun∣ctions in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of any creature; and a man must be a fool or a seducer to do otherwise. A meer man, as the Pope is, can he fill the souls of men with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, which is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? Can he def••nd the Church against all its enemies, visible and invisible? Can he give the Crown of Righteousness to those who shall be victorious and faithful to God to the death? Can he raise them up again? These are Acts of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ over his Church. What relation hath the Dominion of the Pope to that of Jesus Christ? What resemblance between light and darkness? between Jesus Christ and Belial?

Thus it is evident that it is without any foundation that the Bi∣shops of Rome boast of being Vicars of Jesus Christ; th••y are no more so, then the meanest Priest of the Church; and it was with reason that the Council of Basil * 1.1 maintained to them, that they

were not Vicars of Jesus Christ, but of the Church, as every Cu∣rate is in his Parish, Pontifex Vicarius Ecclesiae, non Christi. Neverthe∣less they maintain that St. Peter had this Employ of Universal Vi∣car, that he was Head of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, Bishop of Bishops, Soveraign both of Spirituality and Temporality, Monarch of the Church, and of the World. In a word, that he had all the Prerogatives that the Popes at this present time enjoy, in quality of Successors of St. Peter. And that, as I have said, with∣out being able to produce so much as one word, of the Creation and Institution of this Charge so important to the Church, if you will believe them, nor of the Rights of this Charge, nor of the Succession, nor of the manner of the Election, nor how so mar∣vellous a Charge ought to be Exercised, nor of the respect and obedience due to this Vicar, nor of the use of his Office. They affirm boldly that St. Peter was at Rome, that he was Bishop there, That he founded that Church, That he died there, and left a Suc∣cessor, who was called Clement or Linus, or Anacletus; of which things, tho they make the Salvation of all men to depend upon them, they are not able to prove one tittle. And they do affirm that this Successor entered into the full possession of all the Privi∣ledges of St. Peter, to which all the Bishops of that City have ever since equally succeeded, both good and bad, unto the present Pope Innocent the Eleventh.

It must be readily acknowledged, that these Gentlemen must have very penetrating understandings to make these discoveries from the Gospel; for it is certain that they are wholly impercepti∣ble there; I have sometimes read it without ever finding any thing that was at all like it, and I think I saw clearly that St. Peter never knew he had this Authority, but that on the contrary he believed that no Christian whatever, much less a Bishop, ought to have it in the Church; nor did the other A••ostles know it any more than he, for somewhat of it would then appear; and they who protest they have made known to us the whole will of God, would have been extreamly to blame not only to have declared nothing of it to us, but also to have always spoken and acted with their Soveraign Head and Master, as with an Equal. And St. Paul would have lost all manner of respect for him when he so warmly reproved him. It seems probable also that our Saviour was obliged to have given them notice of it; for naturally they could not know it; and the Modesty, Charity, and Humility of St. Peter might have hindred

him from declaring and exercising this Empire over them; yet it is certain that there is nothing like this to be found. Nevertheless this doth not hinder but that the Pope and Cardinals whose eyes their own interest opens, as it blinds other peoples, have in their own opinions found very strong proofs of it in the New Testa∣ment: They say for example, that our Saviour changed only St. Peter's name; the reason as you see is without reply; for it follows very necessarily from thence, that St. Peter was the Head and King of the Church. But unluckily he also changed the names of the Children of Zebedee. They say also that he is sometimes named the first; but if he be not so always, this will signifie nothing to them; but tho he had been always so, this would not prove that he had authority over the others as the Pope hath over the other Bishops. Amongst the Presidents, the first hath no power over the others; nor amongst the Electors of the Empire; the Elector of Mentz, who hath the first place, hath no authority over the other Electors; and so in all Societies the Primacy carries no dominion along with it: But besides, if that reason should take place, the Holy Virgin, who is sometimes named the last in Scripture, would be greatly degraded from the place that belongs to her. If St. Peter were always named the first, that might have been given to his Age, as the Fathers say; and in truth we ought to attribute it to this, that our Saviour spoke so often to him, as well as to the fervency of his zeal, which as we ought to admire and commend, so also may we say that it was owing to the eagerness of his temper, which being not always well regulated, made him commit greater faults than any others of the Apostl••s (except the perfidious Judas) which made him be called Satan by his good Master, which none of the other were. We ought also to attribute to this temper the blow he gave Malchus with the Sword, as well as that warmth that made him promise wonders of Fidelity to his Master, and in∣duced him to accompany him to the Emperors Court, where he denied his Saviour. So that it is with very little reason that they make an argument of this to prove his Royalty in the Church. In Spain, where the most Honourable walk the last, they will not fail to alledg places where St. Peter is named last, as in the passage where it is said, I am the Disciples of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Caephas, who is Peter. For I remember that at Paris, where they understand Divinity a little better than in Spain, a good Bishop and an Abbot did maintain to me, that the passage where it is said

that James, Peter and John are esteemed Pillars of the Church, I ha∣ving alledged against them another where he is named the first, they maintained to me I say, that this passage confirmed that which they alledged and proved very well the Primacy of St. Peter. For said the Bishop, when three persons of worth are walking together, they always put the most Honourable in the middle. This is accor∣ding to the common saying, That a Lawyer well paid shall always find the cause of his Client, good: His Benefices made him see clear in this passage.

There are three other passages which the greatest part of our Doctors produce against our Adversaries with a little more colour, which are, Thou art Peter, &c. I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. Feed my sheep. Which passages we shall examine one after an∣other, to see if St. Peter had any priviledg above the other Apo∣stles; they say, that in the first of these passages Jesus Christ doth establish the Church, found it, and built it upon St. Peter. I do not deny but that St. Peter was one of the Pillars of the Church, be∣cause he is so called as well as James and John. Nor can it be de∣nied, but that he was and is one of the foundations of the Church, since that he is not excepted out of the number of the Twelve, who in Scripture are called the Foundations of the New Jerusa∣lem. But I maintain that the Church is no more founded upon him, than upon St. Paul, and the other Apostles. I would fain have these Gentlemen tell me, upon whom the Church was founded be∣fore St. Peter? and why the Church changed its foundation, and upon whom Peter himself was founded? It was without doubt up∣on Jesus Christ, upon the Rock which is the Christ. And it is with∣out all question that St. Peter and we ought to have no other foun∣dation than that which St. Paul had, who says, That no man can lay any other foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Also we see in this passage, that it is upon the Rock, upon the Rock of Ages, that our Saviour builds his Church, and not upon St. Peter. The Holy Ghost would have changed neither name nor person, if he would have had us to have believed this of St. Peter. He would not have said, Super hanc Petram, sed super te Petrum. Vpon this Rock, but upon thee Peter.

To the end that no difficulty may remain, we must observe what goes before, and what follows after. Jesus Christ had deman∣ded of all the Apostles together, whom they thought he was? Peter either as the eldest or most zealous answers for all, and says to him,

Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Whereupon Jesus Christ says to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, &c. It is evident that as our Saviour's discourse was directed to all, and that Peter answered for all; the following part of our Saviours Discourse was directed also to them all, and related no more to Peter than to any other particular Apostle. And men must have lost their understandings to think, that Jesus Christ in this place founded his Church upon Peter, whom in the same Chapter he calls Satan. What Foundation would the Church have had, and what would have become of her when he deni'd his Saviour?

It must then necessarily be acknowledged, that it is not the visi∣ble Church that is here spoken of, which they pretend St. Peter to be the Head of: But the Invisible, the Society of the Faithful, and the Elect. For the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Church, not only when St. Peter denied his Master, since that the foundation being run to decay, that which is built upon it falls to ruin: But since that time have they not very often prevailed against this Church which they would have the Bishops of Rome the pre∣tended Successors of St. Peter to be the Heads of? For Example, when according to the Fathers the whole World was Arian * 1.2, the Bishops of Rome and all their Flock; and so many other times as the Popes have been Magicians, Sodomites, Atheists, Hereticks, &c. And what would have become of the Church in the time of that great Schism that succeeded Gregory the Ninth, which lasted fifty years, when the French would not have an Italian Pope, nor the Italians a French one; and many Princes would have neither one nor other; to whom at length Charles the Sixth joined himself for three years, and the Kingdom of France was very well conten∣ted without a Pope; and many other Princes for a longer season. And what shall we say of that great Schism which the Popes made and caused with the Greek Church, by cutting them off, out of De∣vilish pride, from the Communion of the Church, because they would not submit to their yoke, but demanded the observation of the Canons? What shall we say also of that great Apostacy that happened about 130 or 140 years since, or thereabout, when so many States separated themselves from the Church, by reason of the Impiety and Tyranny of the Popes? Doth not all this prove that Hell hath prevailed against this exterior and visible Church, which the Popes govern, and whereof St. Peter according to them was the Head? It is then the Invisible Church which is here spoken

of the Society of the Faithful, the Heavenly Jerusalem, whereof Je∣sus Christ is the principal Corner-stone, upon which St. Peter him∣self saith believers are built as living stones. He says not it is on himself that they are built, but on the contrary, he pretends himself as well as others, to be one of these living stones which are built upon the Corner-stone, which is Christ. It is then upon the Rock confessed by Simon Peter, or upon his Confession that the Church is founded; on that which he declared that Jesus Christ was the true Messias, the Son of the Living God. And the Fathers understood it no otherwise. I do not pretend here to relate all that they have said upon this subject, but only some clear passages: * 1.3 Origen upon St. Matthew tells us, That if we say as Peter did, Thou art the Christ, &c. we are also what St. Peter was; and that it shall be also said unto us what follows, Thou art Peter. For whosoever is the Disciple of Christ, the same is also Peter. And ‡ 1.4 St. Cyprian shews very well, that he did not believe that St. Peter was priviledged beyond the other Apostles, when he says, that the other Apostles were as considerable as Saint Peter, and that they were all equal in authority and power, but that our Lord to shew the Uni∣ty there ought to be in his Church, speaks but to one, and that the first place was given to Peter. And in another place, Our Lord, says he, gave to all his Apostles the same power after his Resurrection, and said to them, As the Father hath sent me, so send I you. * 1.5 And Saint Ambrose, Our Lord said to Peter, Vpon this Rock, &c. that is to say, upon this Confession of the Catholick Church, I ordain that Believers shall have life. And in another place, † 1.6 What was said to Peter, was said to the other Apostles. And St. Hierom ‖ 1.7 The Church is the House built upon the firm Rock which is Christ. * 1.8 And in another place, She was founded upon a Rock, that is to say, Christ; for this is the only founda∣tion which the Apostle as a good Architect hath laid, viz. our Lord Jesus Christ. * 1.9 St. Augustine, Our Lord said, Vpon this Rock, &c. because that Peter had said, Thou art the Christ, &c. Vpon this Rock then which thou hast confessed, will I build my Church. The Rock was Christ, upon whose f••undation Peter himself was builded; for no man can lay any other foundation than that which hath been laid, viz. Jesus Christ. Ideo ait Dominus super hanc Petram, &c. Quia dixerat Petrus tu es Chri∣stus, &c. Super hanc ergo Petram quam confessus es aedificabo Ec∣clesiam meam. Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum ipse aedi••icatus est Petrus; nam nemo potest ponere aliud fundamentum quam id quod positum est, a Christo.

The same * 1.10 Author speaks in another place thus: Quid est super hanc Petram? super id quod dictum est, Tu es Christus, super Petram quam confessus es, super hanc Petram quam agnovisti dicens, Tu es Chri∣stus, super me aedificabo te, non me super te. Nam volentes homines, super homines aedificare dicebant; Ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego autem Cephae, ipse est Petrus; sed alii qui nolebant aedificare super Petrum, sed super Petram, dicebant; Ego sum Christi, &c. What is this saying, Vpon this Rock? That is, upon this Faith, upon what was said, That thou art the Christ, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, say∣ing, Thou art the Christ: Vpon me will I build thee, and not thee upon me; for they who would build upon men, said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, who is Peter; but those who would not build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, I am the Disciple of Christ. This Holy Doctor hath a thousand such like sayings which I cannot relate to avoid being tedious. ‖ 1.11 Chrysostome says also, Vpon this Rock, &c. That is to say, upon this Faith and Confession. Super hanc Petram, hoc est super hanc fidem & confessionem. And * 1.12 in an∣other place, Super hanc Petram, non dixit super Petrum, non enim super hominem, sed super fidem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam: Quae autem erat fi∣des? Tu es Christus filius Dei viventis. Vpon this Rock, he did not say upon Peter; for he hath not built his Church upon a man, but upon Faith. What then was this Faith? Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. * 1.13 Gregory Nyssen, Non Petrus & Johannes, & Jacobus tantum, sunt Ecclesiae columnae, sed omnes qui Ecclesiam sustentant. Peter, James and John are not the only Pillars of the Church, but all they who support the Church. Methinks there needs no more to perswade every honest minded man, that the Fathers did not believe that Jesus Christ founded his Church upon St. Peter in particular, much less upon the Popes. I could easily produce a thousand other Eviden••es from the ancient Fathers, and even from many Doctors that lived within the last four or five hundred years; tho the truth hath been al∣most wholly stifled, and that by men perfectly sold to the Court of Rome, as well as to Iniquity. But I must not tire out my Reader. † 1.14 The Jesuit Salermont alone, is worth a thousand of them, for he doth own that the Popes Authority hath no foundation in the Scri∣pture, and he placeth it among Traditions not written. I demand only the liberty of confuting the abuse of two other places of Scri∣pture, whereof we have spoken: One would think they were al∣ready sufficiently confuted by the passages which I have alledged; which prove that the Fathers did not believe that St. Peter had any

Prerogative above the other Apostles; and here a Reflection may be made, which I think necessary to prevent the Cheat which may be put upon us in this matter, by producing some passages of the Fathers falsified or maimed, or else some Testimonies of the Do∣ctors of the later times, who have been for the most part vile slaves to the Popes and the Court of Rome.

It must be considered that when upon such a subject as this, a man shall pretend to alledg any thing of Antiquity, which seems to favour the opinion of St. Peter's Primacy, that cannot counter-ballance what I have produced in short against that Primacy, not only because I can produce an hundred places against one which they shall alledg; but principally for this reason, that it is never al∣lowable for any man to oppose the Institutions of God, nor to mis∣understand, deny, change, or diminish them. So that if St. Peter had had the Authority over the Apostles, and over the whole Church, which they pretend, and which the Popes at this time do exercise over Bishops, Kings, and the whole Church, the Fathers never could deny it without a crime; nor could they ever equal him to the other Apostles without being guilty of Heresie, and hei∣nous offence against God. Whereas we may very lawfully speak advantageously of the Ordinances and Institutions of God, of Holy things, and every thing that conduceth to the true Worship of God, and consequently of the Holy Apostles also, who were the admirable Organs of his Grace for the conversion of the World. We may, I say, speak of them with praise and with wonder, with respect and veneration, and even attribute to them sometimes names and degrees of excellency, which do not belong to them without any prejudice to Piety, provided they are not attributes nor honours which are appropriated only to the Divine Being, for then it would be Idolatry, as it is to attribute that to the Pope which belongs only to Jesus Christ. For example, in reference to the great men of this world, it is very allowable to speak to the advantage of a Minister of State, to whom a great King shall com∣municate a part of his Authority for his service: It is very fit to commend him, and to extoll him even above his merit, by reason of the good qualities which appear in him, or the favours which he receives from the King; provided that the respect and obedience due to the King be inviolably kept; but it would be a crime to lessen or contemn him, especially when the prosperity, tranquillity and safety of the State depends upon him. So I maintain, that tho

the Fathers had said a t••ousand times of St. Peter, That the Church was founded upon him, and that he was the Head of it; If they have said sometimes that he was not so, and that he had nothing more excellent than the other Apostles, this last ought to prevail, because that the first was an expression of favour, and without dan∣ger, since they assert ev••ry where, that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church, and that it was hard to conceive that ever men should arrive to su••h excess of extravagancy as to think that one simple man could be the Head of the Universal Church. Whereas if St. Peter had been instituted by God in that quality, to deny it, would look like resisting God, destroying the Church, which would be established upon him, and dethroning J••sus Christ, by dethroning his Vicar. It must then be agreed to, whatever the Doctors of the Age say, that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, and not upon a man; and we may say with David, That the stone which the builders refused, is in spight of them become the Corner∣stone of the Church.

But let us come to the second passage: Tibi dabo claves, &c. I will give thee the Keys, &c. First of all you must know the occasion whereon this was said to him: Jesus Christ had asked this questi∣on of his Disciples, Whom think you that I am, &c. Peter with his wonted fervor spake and answered for all, Thou art the Christ, &c. And our Lord upon this promiseth to all his Apostles, and to the whole Church under the name of Peter, the Power of the Keys, which is indisputable, because in the 18 Chap. of St. Matthew, he tells them all in general, and without distinction the same thing, Verily I say unto you, That whatsoever you shall bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. The other Apostles then, have this power as well as St. Peter; and we see it also in St. John the 20. and the 22. where Jesus Christ says to all his Apostles, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven; and whosesoever ye retain, they are retained.

Let us see whether the Fathers be not against us. We have al∣ready heard St. Cyprian, * 1.15 who says, Christus Apostolis post Resurrecti∣onem parem potestatem tribuit. Jesus Christ after his Resurrection gave an equal power to his Apostles. † 1.16 Origen demands, An vero soli Petro dan∣tur a Christo claves Regni Caelorum, nec alius beatorum quisquam eas ac∣cepturus est? Quod si dictum hoc, tibi dabo claves, &c. Caeteris quoque commune est, cur non simul & omnia & quae prius dicta sunt, & quae se∣quuntur velut ad Petrum dicta sunt omnium communia? Were the Keys of

the Kingdom of Heaven given only to Peter, and shall no other blessed per∣son have them? Certainly if what was said, I will give thee the Keys, be common to all the Apostles, why shall not all that goes before, and that fol∣lows after, tho said only to Peter, be common to all?

St. Hilary * 1.17 Vos O sancti & beati viri ob fidei vestri meritum, claves Regni Coelorum & ligandi & solvendi jus in terra adepti. He spoke to the Apostles, O holy and blessed men, who by the merits of your faith have obtained the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing upon Earth. † 1.18 St. Hierom, At dicis super Petrum fundatur Ec∣clesia, licet id ipsum, in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves Regni Caelorum accipiunt, & ex aequo super eos, Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur; tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite consti∣tuto schismatis tollatur occasio. Sed cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum est. Quia Petrus senior erat, ne adhuc adolescens ac poene puer provectae aetatis hominibus anteferretur, & ne causam praebere videretur invidiae. But you say the Church is founded upon Peter, tho in other places the same thing is done upon all the Apostles, and they all receive equally the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and the strength of the Church is equally founded up∣on one as well as another; nevertheless he chose one out of the Twelve, to the end that by establishing a Head he might take away the occasion of Schism. But why was not John chosen? Jesus Christ had regard to the age of Pe∣ter, who was the eldest, and would not prefer a young man, one that was almost a child, before those who were more advanced in years, that he might not seem to give an occasion for envy amongst them. * 1.19 The same Hierom tells us, that the Ministers under the Gospel have also the power of binding, and of loosing, of pardoning sins, or retaining them; that is to say, of judging when God doth pardon us or not. Id juris & officii habent Sacerdotes Evangelici quod olim sub lege habebent Legales in curandis Leprosis. Hi ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo, vel retenta judicant vel ostendunt. St. Augustin ‡ 1.20, Sicut in Aposto∣lis cum esset etiam numerus duodenarius, & omnes essent interrogati, solus Petrus respondit, Tu es Christus, &c. Et ei dicitur, Tibi dabo claves, tan∣quam ligandi & solvendi solus acceperit potestatem, cum & illud unus pro omnibus dixerit, & hoc cum omnibus dixerit, & hoc cum omnibus tanquam personam gerens ipsius unitatis acceperit. Ideo unus pro omnibus quia uni∣tas est in omnibus. Amongst the Apostles who were Twelve in number, tho they were all asked, Peter only answered, Thou art the Christ: and Jesus Christ said to him, I will give thee the Keys, as tho he alone had received the power of binding, and of loosing. Tho the truth is, that he said that for all; and that he received also this power for all; because that he represented

the person of them all, and the union that there ought to be amongst them. One spoke for all, because the unity was in all. The same Father also says in another place, Manifesta est Sententia Domini nostri Apostolos mittentis, & ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam promittentis,* 1.21 quibus nos successi∣mus eadem potestate Ecclesiam regentes: That is to say, We see clearly the intention of our Lord when he sent out his Apostles, and promised them the same power which his Father had given him; and we have succeeded them, governing the Church with the same power.

* 1.22And so in other places,

Quando Petro dictum est, Tibi dabo claves, &c. Typum Ecclesiae gerebat, unus pro omnibus respon∣dit. When it was said to Peter, I will give thee the Keys, &c. he represented the Church, one single person answered for all.

And in another place, † 1.23

Ecclesiae dictum est: Tibi dabo claves, &c. It was said to the Church, I will give thee the Keys, &c.

Theophylactalso,

Habent potestatem remittendi & ligandi quicun∣que sicut Petrus Episcopatus gratiam assecuti sunt, quamvis au∣tem Petro soli dictum sit, Dabo tibi; omnibus tamen Apostolis concessae sunt. That is to say, All they have the power of remit∣ting and unloosing, who as St. Peter have obtained the Honour of being Bishops; for tho it were said to Peter alone, I will give, &c. yet the Keys were given to all the Apostles. And Leo the first, † 1.24 Transivit etiam in alios Apostolos vis potestatis istius, & ad omnes Ecclesiae Principes Decreti hujus constitutio commeavit, sed non frustra uni commendavit, quod omnibus intimetur. Pe∣tro idem ideo hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur; manet ergo Petri privilegium, ubicun{que} fertur ex ipsius aequitate Judicium. That is to say, That the power of the Keys was given also to all the Apostles; and not only to them, but to all Bishops; and that it was not without design that our Lord committed to one what he intima∣ted to all: For thereby the example of Peter is proposed to all them who have a share in the Government of the Church. Where∣ever then any one judges as Peter did, there is the priviledg of Peter also to be found.

And it is to be observed that Leo said this in a time when the Bishop of Constantinople would have had the Primacy.

I think these Evidences are sufficient to shew the injustice of the Popes, who attribute to St. Peter alone those things which he had in common with all the other Apostles, and all good Pastors, and that to usurp an authority which neither St. Peter nor any other

Creature ever could have; and though it were possible that St. Peter or any other might have had it, the Popes have less right to pretend to it than any other Priest, because that they are but Temporal Princes; For under the Gospel men derogate both from Episcopacy and Priesthood, when they become Temporal Princes; and it is certain that according to the Scripture and the Holy Canons, these two things are inconsistent. They ought to consider which they will stand to: I am perswaded they would not contradict themselves in the matter, but would always hold to the Temporal, which they call the solid thing, as Cardinal Pa∣lavicini † 1.25 very well observes, that they desire the Popedom only for the vast quantities of Money which they get by it, with the means of Obliging and doing Courtesies; Due beni per cui soli appar Desi∣derable il Pontificato, il Principiato dell Oro e del Obligo. And in the Age we live in, they would be in danger of not making so much of their Episcopacy as Boniface the third did by Phocas; and if they should let their Beast but once get loose, they would find it a hard matter to get up again.

But besides, I think I ought here to put you in mind of one thing, which is, that the power of binding and loosing is not what the Popes and many evil minded Priests would make us believe; for I do maintain, not only that the Pope cannot free a man from the guilt of his Crimes, and from the punishment due to them, no more than the meanest Priest, as * 1.26 Marsilius of Padua heretofore said; but also, that neither one nor other of them hath any power of pardoning Sins, but as far as it doth appear to them that God doth pardon them, and that properly it belongs not to them but to God. I shall be asked how the Priest or the Pope knows when God pardons any mans Sins: And I ask them, by what Authority they can dispence with the punishments a man hath deserved for ha∣ving offended God, without there be some appearance of Contri∣tion in this Man? I know very well there are many who affirm that the Pope can do it, and others who pretend that attrition is sufficient; but it will be no hard matter for me to prove that these Opinions are both foolish and Impious: It is God only that can truly pardon Sins, and he never does it but to the Contrite Heart, that is to say, to those who have a real sorrow within themselves for having offended so good and so merciful a God; and who make a firm Resolution to forsake their Sins, and to punish them∣selves

by Repentance, and by the Mortification of their Flesh, and of their Passions, and who will as much as in them lies in refe∣rence to men, repair their crimes by making Satisfaction to all those they have wronged: and Lastly, who have made a Vow to endeavour all their Life-time to root up all their evil habits. When these Dispositions do not appear in a Penitent, the Pastor cannot pardon his Sins; and when they do appear, he cannot refuse to give him Absolution. The Holy Scripture mentions no other power of binding and loosing Sinners, but doth detest the use which the Popes make of it, who Excommunicated whomsoever they please, even Kings themselves, and whole Nations for no other reason that their Fantasy, ‡ 1.27 St. Hierom made light enough of these Excom∣munications, when he said, Apud Deum non Sententia Sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaeritur. * 1.28 And in an other place, Solvunt Apostoli Sermone Dei, testimoniis Scripturarum & Exhortatione virtutum. That is to say, that God enquires not after the Priests Opinion, but what sort of life a Sinner hath led. It is the word of God, the Evidences of Holy Scripture, and Exhortations to vertue, by which the Apostles do Absolve, * 1.29 St. Ambrose also, Verbum Dei, says he, dimittit peccata, sacerdos est Judex, sacerdos officium suum exhibet, nullius autem potestatis jura exercet; It is the word of God, says he, that pardons Sins, the Priest is the Judge who doth his Duty (in judging according to this Word) but exerciseth no Authority. And St. Augustin. † 1.30 Claves sunt discernendi scientia & potentia qua dig∣nos recipere & indignos excludere debet Sacerdos a Regno Dei. The Keys, saith he, signifie no other thing than the Knowledge and Skill of discerning those who are Worthy, and those who are Vnworthy, that the Priest may Exclude them from the Kingdom of God.

It is now time to examine the third passage which they alledge for the Primacy of St. Peter, which you find in the 21 of St. John. Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my Sheep? From whence they draw this Consequence, that St. Peter was the Head of the Universal Church; It is certain that he was one of the most excellent Pastors of the Church; but notwithstanding that, he was not a Pastor to any of the Apostles, nor to any other Christians, but as the other Apostles were; For our Lord says to them all in common: As my Father hath sent me, so send I you; and in another place, Go then and teach all Nations, &c. Which is the same thing as if he had said to them all, Feed my Sheep. What is to Feed, but to Teach, Instruct, and Edify as well by Speaking as Writing, by Preaching, and Explain∣ing

to men the word of God and its Truth, accompanying that with a life conformable to that Holiness the Gospel requires; Which is called pascere Exemplo & verbo? But they ask why our Lord repeated three times, Peter lovest thou me, Feed my Sheep? † 1.31 St. Augustin answers that Redditur Negationi Trime Trina Confessio, &c. St. Cyril understands it also in the same sense, Jure nunc ab eo Trina dilectionis Confessio petitur, ut trina negatio aequali Confessionis numero Com∣pensetur: Ita quod verbis commissum fuit verbis curatur,* 1.32 &c. Dixit au∣tem pasce Agnos meos Apostolatus ipsi Renovans dignitatem ne propter Ne∣gationem quae Humana infirmitate accidit, labefacta videretur, &c. That is to say, Our Saviour had reason to demand a three-fold Confession of his love towards him, to Recompence in some measure Peters thrice denying him, &c. And he says unto him, Feed my Sheep, to renew unto him the Dignity of his Apostle-ship, from which he might seem to have fallen by denying his Master. * 1.33 St. Cyprian, Pastores sunt omnes, says he, Sed grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi Confessione pas∣catur. Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. They were all Pastors, but he shewed them but one Flock, which all the Apostles were to feed with an Vnanimous consent. St. Augustin, * 1.34 In Petro uni∣tatem Commendavit; multi erant Apostoli & uni dicitur pasce oves meas, &c. Sed omnes boni pastores in uno sunt, unum sunt Illi pascunt, Christus pas∣cit, &c. He recommended the unity in the person of Peter; there were many Apostles; he said nevertheless but to one of them, Feed my Sheep, &c. But all good Pastors are in one, and are but one. They feed, Christ feed∣eth, &c. The same Father says in another place;* 1.35 In uno Petro figu∣rabatur unitas omnium Pastorum sed Bonorum. In Peter only was repre∣sented the unity of all Pastors; but that is to say, of all good Pastors. Chrysostom, * 1.36 tum ostensu••us es eximiam tuam Dilectionem in Christum, cum paveris ejus gregem, cum scriptum sit si diligis me, pasce Oves meas. Then said he to St. Basil, thou wilt shew thy love towards Jesus Christ, if thou feedest his Flock as it is written, Lovest thou me? feed my Sheep. St. Peter himself explains to us these words, and shews that he was himself far from pretending to the quality of Universal Pastor, Excluding the other Apostles; because he doth acknowledge that even the Priests are Pastors as well as himself, and that the Flock of Christ is committed to their charge as well as to his; which they ought to feed not out of a ••hameful desire of gain; but by a disinterested Charity, not in lording it over the Heritage, or over the Cl••rgy of the Lord;* 1.37 But by giving themselves a good exam∣ple to their Flock: How many r••proofs are ••ere in a f••w words ag••inst the Pope and evil Priests?

These are the places of Scripture which they cite with the greatest colour for the papacy of St. Peter, which as they explain them, are I think sufficiently confuted. One may say of them, as here∣tofore the Council of Basil said to the Creatures of Pope Eugenius, who also corrupted the Sence of these Passages. Sunt Interpretati∣ones Paparum fimbrias suas extendentium. * 1.38 These are Interpretations of Popes, that stretch out the Skirts of their Garments. To these which I have already given, I shall yet add some reasons drawn from the Gospel it self, against this pretended Primacy and Rule of St. Peter. I shall not repeat that we see nothing in the Gospel but Precepts of Humility, of Charity, of renouncing the World, its Grandures, Pleasures and Riches, But I shall say that we read in the Acts of the Apostles, † 1.39 that St. Peter was sent to Samaria by the other Apostles. A Prince is not usually treated thus by his Sub∣jects: * 1.40 We see also that in another place, having been accused by the others for misbehaving himself, he justifies himself; This looks not like a Soveraign. Would the Pope endure this from the Bishops, or from any other? We see not that he gave Laws to others, that he established any thing by his own private Authority, without the other Bishops. * 1.41 St. Paul says expresly, that he was not inferior to the greatest of the Apostles: In St.† 1.42 Matthew and St. John, it is manifest, that Jesus Christ gave to all his Apostles the same power. * 1.43 And in the Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter, James and John gave their hands to each other, as a mark of the Society that was between them. Would the Pope give his in this manner to the other Bishops? We see that at the Council of Jerusalem, it was not St. Peter, but St. James, who presided and concluded. We read in the Epistle to the Galatians, ‖ 1.44 that St. Paul and he agreed together, that St. Paul should go and Preach to the Gentiles, and St. Peter to the Jews.

If St. Peter had known that he had been the Head of the Church, he would not in all likelihood have suffered, that his Ministry should have been thus limited, or that the Ministry or Power of St. Paul should have been of an extent an hundred times greater than his, especially if he had been of the humour of our good Popes. If any Bishop should pretend to govern the Church of France or Spain without them, it is to be believed, that it would not be ve∣ry pleasing to them; and from hence by the way, one may judge that Saint Peter had nothing to do at Rome, nor was he ever there, as they imagine. There is yet somewhat of greater

weight then all this; That is, that St. Paul tells us he withstood St. Peter to his face, because he deserved reproof. This looks as if St. Paul had had some Authority over St. Peter: We hear not that he reproached him for his Arrogance, nor that he Excommunica∣ted him. It must be acknowledged that here is a great difference between the proceedings of the Pope, and those of St. Peter: For it is certain that if a Bishop should at this day dare to displease the Majesty of the Pope, he should be soon swallowed up and destroy∣ed by his glory. I believe that Origen might have an eye to St. Paul's thus correcting St. Peter, when he said that St. Paul was the greatest of all the Apostles; * 1.45 Paulus Apostolorum maximus; or else he might also have regard to the great extent of St. Pauls Ministry, or to what he himself says, that he took more pains than all the other Apostles. And all the Fathe••s looked upon him, as he who among all the Apostles wrote the most profoundly, and with the greatest light. This is what St. Augustin says of him. St. Chry∣sostom looks upon him as the first of all the Saints; and if there had been any Preheminence among the Apostles, he should have been preferred before any other. We may say then, that the Popes in that Authority which they usu••p, have nothing common with St. Peter, nor can they be compared together, but in one thing, which is, that as St. Peter being come into Pilates-Hall, denyed Christ three times, the Popes since they have taken upon them∣selves the Authority of Pilate, and of worldly Princes, have deny∣ed him not three times, but once for all. Vna sol volta in Corte di Pilato entro est Petro e tra rinego Christo.

Thus we see that in the Holy Scripture there is not one word that can in the least authorize the Popes Supremacy. And we may compare those who establish it there, to poor Heralds, who to get a little mo∣ney, do very frequently make people meanly descended, to derive from the Ancient Greek and Roman Emperors, because the Cullyes hav•• gotten an Estate, and are become rich, tho most usually 'tis only by Rogueries and Robberies. And it is not difficult thus to de∣ceive people, who always admire those that are rich and able to do them a kindness. They never enquire how they came by it as the Spaniard says, Alcansados los honores quedam Borrados los passos, por∣dende se subio a ellos. Since then that the new Testament doth not acknowledg this Authority of the Popes, but absolutely condemn it; it hath no lawful Institution for a Doctrine of that Importance as the Primacy of the Pope is, whereon they make the whole Go∣vernment

of the Church, Religion it self, and the Salvation of all Christians to depend, being not to be found in Scripture, cannot be but false. For though it be true that there are some Customs and Ceremonies in the Church which are not to be found in Scripture, and which the Protestants are greatly in the wrong, obstinately to reject, because that Tradition, and the use or practise of the Church, have so long since given them sufficient Authority, as they them∣selves acknowledg; yet that cannot be said of this Article, which according to the Popes, and the greatest part of the Doctors, is Ca∣pital; and so Capital they would willingly perswade us, that without it the rest signifies nothing. It was very impiously said of Cardinal Palavicim in his Third Book of his History of the Council of Trent, Chap. the 15. That the Christian Religion hath no more sure and immediate certainty than the Popes Authority. Quella Religione, i cui Articoli Vnita∣mente considerati non hanno Altera Certezza prossima & immediata che l' Au∣torita del Pontifice. We see clearly, that if this Authority were laid a∣side, they would renounce the profession of Christianity, as piety hath been already renounced by them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aeneas Silv. in Gest. Conc. Basil.
• * 1.2

  ••otus Or∣bis se Aria∣num esse mi∣ratus est. Hieron.
• * 1.3

  Origen in Mar. chap. 16. Tract. 1.
• ‡ 1.4

  Cypri. de simplicitate Praelat.
• * 1.5

  Ambr. in Epist. ad Eph. cap. 2.
• † 1.6

  Ambr. in Psal. 32.
• ‖ 1.7

  Hieron. in Psal. 40.
• * 1.8

  Idem in Mat. 8.
• * 1.9

  August. in Johan. Tract. 124.
• * 1.10

  August. de Verbo Dom. Serm. 60.
• ‖ 1.11

  Chrysost. in Matth. 16.
• * 1.12

  Chrysost. in Sermone de Pentecost.
• * 1.13

  Gregor. Nyss. lib. de vita Mosi••.
• † 1.14

  Sal. 13. Tom. 1. lib. com. in Epist. Pauli.
• * 1.15

  Cypr. de Unitate Ec∣clesiae.
• † 1.16

  Origen. in Math. Tract. 1.
• * 1.17

  St Hilary lib. 6. de Tri∣nitate, in the Council of Ephesus — there is an E∣pistle of the Council of A∣lexandria, where are these words, Petrus & Jo∣hannes & ae∣quales sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis.
• † 1.18

  Hieron con∣tra Jovian. lib. 1. cap. 14.
• * 1.19

  Hieron. in Mat. 16.
• ‡ 1.20

  August. in Joh. Trac. 118.
• * 1.21

  Id. in Epist. Joh. Tract. 10.
• * 1.22

  August. in Joan. Tra. 124.
• † 1.23

  Idem in Joan. Tract. the 10.

  Theoph. in Mat. chap. 16.
• † 1.24

  Leo in Anni∣ver. die assum∣ptionis suae ad Pontif. Ser∣mone 3.
• † 1.25

  Palavicini lib 4. c. 6.
• * 1.26

  Marsilius Patav. p. 2, c. 15.
• ‡ 1.27

  Hierom in Math. cap. 16.
• * 1.28

  Idem in Esaiam cap. 14.
• * 1.29

  St. Amb. cap. 4. lib. 2. de Cain & Abel.
• † 1.30

  August. in Johan. tract. 124.
• † 1.31

  Aug. in Johan. tract. 123. cap. 210.
• * 1.32

  St. Cyril. in Joh. lib. 12. cap. 64.
• * 1.33

  Cypr. de unitate Ec∣clesiae.
• * 1.34

  St. Aug. de Pastor.
• * 1.35

  Idem in ser∣mone de Pe∣tro & Paulo.
• * 1.36

  Chysost. lib. 2. de sacer∣dote.
• * 1.37

  St. Peter the 1. c. 5. v. 1.2.3.
• * 1.38

  Conc. Basil apud Aene. S••. in gestis Concil.
• † 1.39

  Acts cap. 8. v. 14.
• * 1.40

  Acts 11. v. 1.
• * 1.41

  1 Corin. chap. 11. v. 5.
• † 1.42

  Math. 28. v. 20.
• * 1.43

  John 20. v. 22.23.
• ‖ 1.44

  Gal. 2. v. 9, Gal. 2. v. 7.
• * 1.45

  Origen in Numeros, Hom. 3.