Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 7

Romanism Discussed · Treatise · Article 7

p. 151ARTIC. VII.

The Popes Supremacy is an Innovation.

The Pope or Biſhop of Rome's Supremacy or Headſhip of the whole Church of God is not proved by H. T.

SECT. I.

Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Biſhop of Rome, or that he was to have a Succeſſour.

Our Tenet, ſaith H. T. is that the Pope or Biſhop of Rome is the true Succeſſour of St. Peter and Head of the whole Church of God, which hath in part been proved already by our Catalogue of chief Paſtours (who were all Popes of Rome) and by the Councils of all Ages, approved by them, and owning them for ſuch, and is yet farther proved thus.

Anſw. THat Peter was Pope of Rome hath been ſaid, but never yet proved but by the tradition of the Ancients, who might be as eaſily deceived in that as they were about Chriſt's age, the keeping of Eaſter, and many other things. Thoſe very men who relate Peter's ſitting at Rome as Biſhop do not agree about his immediate Succeſſour, whether Linus, or Clemens, or Cletus, as H. T. confeſſeth here pag. 52. And the relation it ſelf is ſo inconſiſtent with that which Paul ſaith, that by conſent he and Peter agreed that Peter ſhould go to the Jews, and had the Gospel of the Circumciſion committed to him, his not ſaluting Peter in his Epiſtle to the Romans, his being at Antioch, and according to Luke, and Paul in other places ſo long a time as they mention in the Acts of the Apoſtles, and the Epiſtle to the Galatians, makes it altogether improbable that he ſhould be Biſhop at Rome ſuch a time as they ſay he was, and be put to p. 152death in Nero's time as the tradition inſiſted on bears in hand. Nor was it agreeable to Peter's Office appointed by Chriſt to be as a fixed Paſtour in one Place. And if he were ſettled in any place it is more probable it was at Antioch, where Paul mentions him to have been, than at Rome, nor of his tranſlation of his Seat from Antioch to Rome is there any proof, but what is by ſuch tradition, as in this and other things appears to be very uncertain and unlikely. Yet were it yielded that Peter was Biſhop or chief Paſtour, how will it be proved that he was to have a Succeſſour? Paul it is certain was at Rome, and did while he was there, undoubtedly execute the Office of a Paſtour, yet Popes do not challenge themſelves to be Paul's but Peter's Succeſſours, however they put Paul's Sword in their Arms with Peter's Keys, and in their Writings ſay the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, and uſe Paul's name with Peter's in their Sentences. Nor can indeed in any true ſenſe the Pope of Rome be termed Peter's Succeſſour. For if he be his Succeſſour, he is Succeſſour in his Work or in his Power. The Work of the Apoſtle Peter was by preaching the Goſpel to found Churches to Chriſt, and to that end was to go to ſeveral places; but the Pope of Rome ſucceeds not in this, he neither goes up and down unleſs in a pompous Proceſſion, or to a worſe end, nor preacheth the Goſpel, nor founds any Churches thereby, nor doth think it his buſineſs, but to ſtay at Rome, and there to live in pomp, and wealth, and luxury, and to lord it tyrannouſly over the Flock of God. Nor is he Succeſſour in his power. Peter had power to give the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 8. to ſtrike Ananias and Sapphira dead, Acts 5. But the Pope cannot do theſe things. Nor in the Government of the whole Church. For this Peter onelyonly had not, nor above other Apoſtles, but together with the reſt. Nor was Peter's or the Apoſtles power any ſuch viſible Monarchy as the Pope claims, to receive Appeals from all Churches, to appoint Legates to hear parties in all controverſies of faith, to be an infallible Judge of ſuch controverſies, an infallible Expounder of the Scriptures, determining what is Hereſie, and what of Faith, calling general Councils, crowning Emperours, depoſing Princes, diſpenſing with Oaths, Marriages of perſons in near degrees, otherwiſe prohibited, impoſe Laws about Faſting, and many other things which God never appointed. Such an Headſhip of the whole Church as the Pope claims Peter never had. Nor is any ſuch thing proved or ſo much as offer'd to be proved by H. T. his Catalogue, which how inſufficient it is hath been alread ſhewed. I go on to his Arguments here.

SECT. II.

From being the Foundation, Matth 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Chriſt, John 21. 15, 16, 17. neither Peter's nor Popes Supremacy is proved.

The firſt Argument, ſaith H. T. is this, The foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability before the rest of the building which is founded on it, and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock, and above his Sheep. But St. Peter next after Chriſt himſelf was the Foundation of the whole Church, and Paſtour of the whole Flock: therefore St. Peter next after Chriſt had a preheminence over the whole Church, and was Head of the whole Flock, and above all the other Sheep, of which number were the reſt of the Apoſtles.

p. 153Anſw. THe Headſhip and paſtoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onelyonly by teaching, but a princely dominion, ſo as that all may appeal to him, none from him, his ſentence muſt be obeyed by all under pain of damnation in matters of faith, and muſt be judged infallible, and 'tis likely he holds with Bellarmine, lib. 4. de Rom. pont. cap. 5. that if the Pope ſhould erre by commanding vices, or forbidding virtues, the Church ſhould be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil, unleſs it would ſin againſt conſcience; and if he diſſent herein from Bellarmine, yet in the Canon Law diſtinct. 40. ſuch an abſolute dominion is given him, that though he ſhould draw innumerable ſouls with him to Hell, no man muſt ſay to him, Why doſt thou ſo? and ſome Flatterers of the Pope have given him all power in Heaven and Earth, yea, and more than Chriſt had, in Purgatory alſo, allowing no Appeal from the Pope to God, as having one Conſiſtory with God, calling him our Lord God the Pope; nor did I ever read or hear that any Pope hath by any Cenſure corrected ſuch blaſphemous Titles, but they have by their commands contrary to Gods, diſpenſing with his Laws, depoſing Emperours, and innumerable other practiſes ſhewed that they owned ſuch power as theirs. Now ſure this power was never given to Peter, nor any ſuch like power under the term of a Foundation, which is for the ruine, not for the eſtabliſhing of the Church, nor under the charge of feeding, eſpecially of anothers Sheep, of whom he is no Owner or Lord. Is this to feed Chriſt's Sheep, to do what he will with them, appoint what Penance he will, put what Laws he pleaſe on the Sheep, to excommunicate, deprive of Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Dignity and Office at pleaſure? ſuch a Supremacy is indeed ſo like that which Paul foretold concerning the man of ſin, 2 Theſſ. 2. 4. that he oppoſeth and exalteth himſelf above all that is called God, or that is worſhipped: ſo that he as God ſitteth in the Temple of God, ſhewing himſelf that he is God; that till I meet with ſome more likely than the Popes to be there meant, I ſhall take it be a part of my Creed, that the Pope of Rome is the very Man of ſin there meant. And for this H. T. who gives ſuch a ſupreme Headſhip to Peter and the Pope over the other Apoſtles, ſo as to make him a Shepherd, to rule, excommunicate, deprive, John, James, Paul, as his Sheep, it is ſo monſtrouſly falſe an Aſſertion as none but he that hath ſold himſelf to teach Lyes would ever aſſert it. As for his Syllogiſm it is moſt groſly naught, as having four terms at leaſt. The term [hath a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability before the reſt of the building which is founded on it] being different from this in the Concluſion, [had a preheminence over the whole Church] and ſo likewiſe are theſe [the Foundation] and [the Foundation of the whole Church] and therefore the Major ſhould have been [the Foundation of the whole Church hath a preheminence over the whole Church] the Minor thus, [Peter next after Chriſt is the Foundation of the whole Church] and the Concluſion thus, [Peter next after Chriſt had a preheminence over the whole Church] or elſe thus, [The Foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability before the whole Church. But Peter next after Chriſt is the Foundation, therefore Peter had a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability before the whole Church] now neither of theſe Concluſions had been p. 154the point to be proved, but might have been granted, and the Aſſertion not gained. And in the other Metaphor the Syllogiſm hath the ſame fault. For in the Major it is [Head of his Flock, and above his Sheep] in the Minor it is [Paſtour of the whole Flock] and in the Concluſion not [Head of his Flock and above his Sheep] but [Head of the whole Flock, and above all the other Sheep] and there is added too this tail of which there is no offer of proof [of which number were the reſt of the Apoſtles.] Now to diſcover beſides the fallacy in the form the deceit in the matter of this Argument, it is to be conſidered, 1. That the Metaphor of a Foundation doth not at all import Rule or Government, but inchoation and ſupport, and therefore is unfit to prove that Rule and Power of Government which H. T. derives from it. 2. That he that is a Shepherd is Head or Lord of his own Sheep, but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner; and therefore though he is to rule and feed them, yet he is not to rule them after his own will, but the Owners, nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep, but the Owner is to have it, the Shepherd is not to look, but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner. Now the Flock of Chriſt were none of Peter's Sheep, nor were all the Sheep of Chriſt univerſally taken to be fed by Peter, for then he ſhould feed, that is, rule himſelf, who was one of the Flock, and ſo excommunicate himſelf, abſolve himſelf▪ and ſith the Pope hath Peter's power, if he be one of the Sheep of Chriſt, by this Doctrine he is to rule, that is, to excommunicate, abſolve, and deprive himſelf. And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like abſurdity: For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church, and the term [Foundation] imports the ruling of the whole Church, Peter, who is a part of the Church, is the Foundation of himſelf, and the Pope of himſelf, and ſith he is the Vicar of Chriſt, he is in ſtead of Chriſt to himſelf, and ſo hath preheminence over himſelf, and the Pope in like manner; yea, unleſs they deny the bleſſed Virgin Mary to have been one of Chriſt's Sheep, they muſt aſſert Peter, and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the bleſſed Virgin Mary, to have had a power to rule, excommunicate and abſolve her. The truth is this, the preſſing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is uſed draweth with it many abſurdities; and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building, Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that uſe of theſe which the Authour of the Speech intended by them, which what it is will be conſidered by examining the Texts brought for proof. And for the Arguments, if they did conclude the thing in queſtion they ſhould be thus framed, or to this purpoſe. He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Chriſt, hath ſupreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Chriſt. But ſuch was Peter, and by conſequence the Pope of Rome. Ergo. Again, He that is to feed all the Sheep of Chriſt hath dominion or rule as aforeſaid. But that was Peter, and conſequently the Pope of Rome is to do. Ergo. In both I ſhould deny the Major underſtood of the under Foundation, Builder, and Shepherd, though it ſhould be yielded by conceſſion of an impoſſibility, yet he ſhould not have ſuch a ſupreme unerring Rule thereby: and I deny the Minor alſo, and in both as they ſtand or ſhould ſtand, there are many Propoſitions in theſe and his forms expreſſed or implied, which are apparently falſe▪ As, 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it. There p. 155were ſome as firm in the Faith as the Apoſtles, and of the Apoſtles ſome as firm or more firm than Peter. 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it. 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion. 4. That as applied to Peter, they note in him ſupreme unerring Rule or Dominion. 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock. 6. That he is above his Flock. 7. That the perſon that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed, the whole Flock of Chriſt univerſally taken. 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much, as have ſupreme dominion, be a viſible Monarch over them. 9. That the Biſhop of Rome is Peter's Succeſſour in that charge and power which Chriſt committed to him over his whole Church. 10. That what is ſaid of Peter in this point is true of every Biſhop of Rome be he never ſo unlearned and vicious. All which I have diſtinctly noted, that it may appear upon how many ſuppoſitions the Popes Supremacy hangs, and yet how looſe, and empty of proof from Scripture or Reaſon the Diſputes of Papiſts are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion, in ſo much that were it not for the heavy curſe, that is befallen Papiſts, that ſith they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be ſaved, they ſhould believe Lyes, that they might be damned, 2 Theſſ. 2. 10, 11, 12. it could not be that underſtanding perſons among them ſhould ever aſſent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon theſe Reaſons.

But let us view what is ſaid here. The Major is proved, becauſe the Foundation ſupporteth the reſt of the Building (we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief Cornerſtone, Epheſ. 2. 20.) and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock.

Anſw. The Argument framed hence muſt be this, That which ſupporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability before the reſt of the Building which is founded on it. But ſo doth every Foundation. Ergo. But the Major is not true of perſonal Metaphorical Foundations, of which we now ſpeak, not of material proper Foundations. A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth, and ſupport it by his wiſdom, and example, and authority, and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and ſtability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it; and ſo in the founding of the Church, a man that founds it may fall away, and yet the Church ſtand firm. Neither is the Minor true of every perſonal metaphorical Foundation, he may be ſaid to be a Foundation, that is, begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after ſupport it. The Text Epheſ. 2. 20. proves neither of the Propoſitions, nor do I know to what purpoſe it is produced, except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation: But then it proves not Peter alone, but the reſt of the Apoſtles and Prophets to have been Foundations, and ſo proves no preheminence to Peter above them, which is the Aſſertion of this Authour. But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apoſtles are termed Foundations. 1. Becauſe this ſeems to be appropriated to Chriſt, 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Becauſe it is not ſaid, Ye are built on the Foundations, but the Foundation, and therefore ſeems to have this ſenſe, ye are built on that Foundation which the Apoſtles and Prophets have laid, not, which they are, and ſo the genitives are of the efficient, not of the ſubject, and the Foundation muſt be that Doctrine or truth they declared, of which Chriſt, that is, the Doctrine or Faith of Chriſt is the chief Cornerſtone. p. 156Nor is this againſt that which is Revel. 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apoſtles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jeruſalem. For that may be ſaid, becauſe they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation, as Paul ſaith of himſelf, 1 Cor. 3. 10. according to the cuſtom of maſter-builders, whoſe names are written in their work, not becauſe they were themſelves the Foundations, as the twelve Tribes, verſ. 12. in the twelve gates, becauſe by them entrance was in the Old Teſtament, they being prime beginners of the people of Iſrael. Yet if they be ſaid to be Foundations, they were Foundations as the Prophets were, to wit, by their preaching: nor doth their being Foundations prove their Rule or Dominion any more than the Prophets being Foundations; and certainly Peter is here made no more a Foundation than the reſt. The other proof ſeems to be this. He that hath power to feed and govern his whole Flock is Head of his Flock, and above his Sheep. But every Shepherd hath ſuch ſuch power. Ergo. The Major is denied. A Pariſh-prieſt hath power to feed and govern his whole Flock, of which a King may be a part, and yet he is not Head of the King, nor above him in dignity or authority, nor perhaps in knowledge. And the like may be ſaid of his Phyſician.

SECT. III.

The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apoſtles, but a promiſe of ſpecial ſucceſs in his preaching.

H. T. adds, The Minor is proved, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, St. Matth. 16. 18. (the whole was built on him.)

Anſw. THe Argument ſeems to be this. He who is the Rock on which Chriſt would build his Church he was next after Chriſt the Foundation of the whole Church. But Peter was the Rock on which Chriſt would build his Church. Ergo. In which there are theſe things ſuppoſed. 1. That the term [Rock] is as much as a Foundation, and ſo it is not the abſolute quality of firmneſs onelyonly, but alſo the relative uſe of a ſtone or a rock in building, which is imported by it. 2. That the term [Rock] notes Peter's perſon. 3. That it notes Peter's perſon alone. 4. That it notes Peter's perſon as being a Rock ſo as no other, but Chriſt, was a Rock as he was. 5. That the Building upon this Rock notes Peter's perſon in reſpect of his ſingular Rule not given to other Apoſtles. 6. That he was the Foundation next after Chriſt. 7. That the Church comprehends the militant Church viſible. 8. That it notes the whole Church of Chriſt even the Apoſtles themſelves: each of theſe is to be examined. 1. The term [foreign] here uſed, whether it be tranſlated [Rock or ſtone] I deny not to denote not ſo much the abſolute property of ſtability, as the relative uſe of a foundation in a Building. 2. Though ſome of the Ancients make Chriſt the Rock, others the confeſſion of Chriſt, or the faith in him, which Peter had profeſſed, yet by reaſon of the occaſion of the ſpeech, and the Preface [I ſay unto thee] and the commemoration p. 157of his Name [Thou art Peter] and the alluſion to that Name in the choice of the word [foreign, or Cephas in Syriack] I deny not that by [this Rock or ſtone] is meant Peter's perſon, nor thirdly, that it notes his perſon alone, nor fourthly, that it notes Peter's perſon in a ſingular manner, ſo as that there is ſomething peculiar to Peter intimated thereby. But I deny, 1. That it notes Peter's ſingular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apoſtles. 2. That he was ſo a Foundation next after Chriſt as that the other Apoſtles were laid on him as a ſtone ſupporting them, as is the conceit of ſome of the Romaniſts. 3. That the term [Church] notes the viſible Church as viſible. 4. That it notes the whole viſible Church univerſally taken. And each of theſe I prove thus.

1. If the term [Rock or Stone] note Peter's perſon as becoming a Foundation or Foundation-ſtone by ſuch an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apoſtles with Peter, then it doth not note Peter's ſingular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apoſtles: but the term [Rock or Stone] notes Peter's perſon, as becoming a Foundation or Foundation-ſtone by ſuch an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apoſtles with Peter. Ergo. The Major is of it ſelf evident. The Minor is thus proved. That act whereby Peter's perſon became a Foundation or Foundation-ſtone was Chriſt's building his Church on him. But that act notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apoſtles with Peter. Ergo. The Major is of it ſelf evident. The Minor is proved thus▪ The act whereby Chriſt built his Church on Peter was Peter's preaching of the ſame Doctrine which he profeſſed. But that act notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apoſtles with Peter. Ergo. The Minor I take for granted: Papiſts do not aſcribe Rule or Dominion to Friers that preach, and other Apoſtles preached Chriſt as well as Peter. Now that Chriſt builded his Church on Peter by his preaching is proved thus. That act by which and no other the Church of Chriſt is ſaid to be built, is that act whereby Chriſt built his Church on Peter. But it is the preaching of the Doctrine that Peter profeſſed and no other act by which the Church of Chriſt is ſaid to be built. The Major is evident of it ſelf. The Minor is proved, 1. By thoſe places which ſpeak of building the Church, they ſtill import teaching not rule, as appears by an induction, Acts 9. 31. Rom 15. 20. 1 Cor. 8. 1, 10. & 10. 23. & 14 4. 17. Gal. 2. 18. 1 Theſſ. 5. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 5. and the compound Verb uſed Acts 20. 30. 1 Cor. 3. 10, 12. Epheſ. 2. 20, 22. Col. 2. 7. Jude 20. and the Noun Rom. 14. 19. & 15. 2. 1 Cor. 3. 9. & 14. 3, 5, 12. 2 Cor. 10. 8. & 12. 19. & 13. 10. Epheſ. 4. 12, 16, 29. do all ſhew that the Building of the Church or Saints is by inſtruction, not by rule, the work being ſometimes mutual, as 1 Theſſ. 5. 11. Epheſ. 4. 10. Jude 20. and ſometimes the matter by which the building is, being for informing and teaching, as Epheſ. 4. 29. and ſometimes the Builders are termed Teachers, as Epheſ 4. 11, 12. and that Text Epheſ. 2. 20. (which H. T. allegeth) the Building being by Prophets as well as Apoſtles can be underſtood of no other Building than by teaching, therefore ſo alſo muſt be underſtood Matth. 16. 18.

2. It is further proved from 1 Cor. 3. 10. where the Apoſtle tells the Corinthians, that as a wiſe Maſter-builder he had laid the Foundation, and that Foundation which he laid was Jeſus Chriſt, verſ. 11▪ and verſ. 5. he ſhews how p. 158that was, to wit, in that he was a Miniſter by whom with Apollos the Corinthians believed, and that thereby they were God's Building, and God's Husbandry, verſ. 9. to wit, by his planting, Apollos watering, and God's increaſe, verſ. 6. which can be referred to no other acts but teaching or preaching of the faith of Chriſt, in which Paul counts himſelf a Maſter-builder, that built not on Peter's foundation, or any others, Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel, and conſequently the building of the Church, Matth. 16. 18. muſt be interpreted to be by preaching the Goſpel.

3. It is further proved by thoſe places which make the Foundation of the Building ſpecial Doctrine, ſuch as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows, that the building of the Church is by Doctrine, and Matth. 16. 18. muſt be underſtood of it, not of Rule or Dominion. Yea, the Council of Trent it ſelf, Seſſ. 3. terms the Creed the firm and onelyonly Foundation, againſt which the Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail; and thereby intimates the Foundation, Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Chriſtian Doctrine.

4. By the appoſiteneſs of the Phraſe to ſignifie planting and increaſing of knowledge and ſtrengthening by teaching, not impoſing commands by way of Rule or Empire. No where is a Prince ſaid to edifie, but Prophets, Apoſtles, and other Teachers; nor is Excommunication, Ordination, calling of Councils, and ſuch acts as ſhew Dominion termed Edification, but teaching and reproving, 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore ſuch princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Chriſt's Church, Matth. 16. 18.

5. The ſame may be proved from the matter of the Promiſe, Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Chriſt would give to Peter, but of what Chriſt would do by him, and conſequently cannot be underſtood of ſupreme power, but of ſingular work.

6. The end of the power, which the Pope claims, is for the exalting of himſelf, and his viſible Monarchy, but the thing promiſed Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter, but the uſe of him for ſetting up his Church. The Popes power is (as all experience witneſſeth) for the deſtruction of the Church, not for edification; and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18.

If any ſay, How then hath Peter ſomething ſingular aſcribed to him? I anſwer, in that he did firſt begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Aſcenſion by his preaching, as Acts 2. & 3. & 4. & 10. appears: and ſeems to be obſerved by Peter, as the accompliſhment of Chriſt's Promiſe, Acts 15. 7. who uſed Peter at the firſt more eminently than any other, though afterwards he choſe Paul, who did labour more abundantly than the reſt, 1 Cor. 15. 10.

2. The ſecond thing that Peter was not ſo a Foundation next after Chriſt, as that the other Apoſtles were laid on him, as a ſtone ſupporting them, is proved 1. From Epheſ. 2. 20. where the building of the Church is ſaid to be on the Foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief Corner-ſtone, in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord; therefore the Apoſtles and Prophets have equal place in the Building, and it is Chriſt, and not Peter, in whom all the Building is fitly framed together. 2. From Revel. 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jeruſalem is ſaid to have twelve Foundations, and not one ſingular one ſupporting p. 159the reſt, but the Foundations are as many as the Apoſtles, none of whom is the Foundation of the reſt.

3. That the term [Church] Mat. 16. 18. notes not the viſible Church as viſible, is proved, 1. In that it is termed Chriſt's Church, but the viſible as viſible is not termed Chriſt's Church, but as it is inviſible by faith and Chriſt's Spirit dwelling in it. 2. In that Chriſt promiſed, that the Gates of Hell ſhould not prevail againſt it. But they have and do prevail againſt the viſible Church as viſible, many viſible Churches have been corrupted and periſh.

4. That [my Church, Matth. 16. 18.] is not the whole Church univerſally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church univerſally taken ſhould be built by or on Peter, but that cannot be true, ſith a great part of the Church ſpecially of the Gentiles was built by Paul, and he denies he built on anothers Foundation, Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter ſhould be built on himſelf, ſith Peter was part of the univerſal Church, and the Virgin Mary ſhould be built on Peter, which are abſurd.

Which things being evinced it appears, 1. That this was a Promiſe to the ſingular perſon of Peter of a ſingular ſucceſs of his preaching which no other had, and ſo belongs not to any Succeſſour. 2. That it is not a Promiſe of Government and Juriſdiction, (in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headſhip, pag. 75.) for that Chriſt expreſly forbade, but of ſingular honour to Peter in his happy ſucceſs in preaching the Goſpel, recompenſing his readineſs to acknowledge Chriſt. And this Chriſt had elſewhere promiſed, Luke 5. 10. under the Promiſe of being a Fiſher of m…n. Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope. As for being a Rock on which the Church of Chriſt might be built; we would moſt gladly it were true, that the Pope were ſuch, we ſhould then honour him and kiſs his Toe: but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years, he is to be judged the Butcher who hath ſlain the Saints of God, and a tyrannical Antichriſt domineering over the Church of Chriſt.

I marvel that H. T. ſaith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which the Pope is painted with, as having them in his hands, and by which he was wont to claim his power. But perhaps he findes it too ſhort for the proof of that peerleſs power which the Pope claims, ſith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechiſm in handling the Prieſts and Biſhops power of Abſolution, the Keys are in their hands, and ſo it is no more than others have beſide the Pope: therefore I need not inſiſt on that here, ſith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it.

SECT. IV.

John 21. 16, 17, 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church.

But he adds, And for a Reward of Peter's ſpecial dilection (for he loved Chriſt more than all the reſt of the Apoſtles) he ſaid to him, Feed my Lambs, Feed my Lambs, Feed my Sheep, St. John 21. 17, 18. (a Commiſſion to feed all without exception.)

p. 160Anſw. THe Argument ſeems to be this, He to whom, as a Reward of his ſpecial dilection, by which he loved Chriſt more tha… all the reſt of the Apoſtles; Chriſt ſaid, Feed my Lambs, Feed my Lambs, Feed my Sheep, St. John 21. 17, 18. and thereby gave him a Commiſſion to feed all without exception was Paſtour of the whole Flock. But this was Peter. Ergo. Here four things are ſuppoſed, whereof not one is true. 1. That Peter loved Chriſt more than all the reſt of the Apoſtles. For neither were all the reſt of the Apoſtles there, nor doth Chriſt or Peter ſay, he did love Chriſt more than they did, but onelyonly puts a queſtion, which may either have this ſenſe, Loveſt thou me more than thou loveſt them? or more than they love me? And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profeſſion, and ſhamefull denial. 2. That Chriſt made Peter a Head, or gave him a ſupreme Dominion under the term of Feeding. But, 1. The words are foreign and foreign; now foreign ſignifies not to rule, but onelyonly to provide paſture, or to eate, as foreign alſo doth, Jude 12. being intranſitive: both of them where they are enjoyned to Apoſtles, Biſhops, or Presbyters, note teaching, not impoſing Laws on perſons, excommunicating, depriving, and ſuch like acts, as Popes claim as belonging to them as Paſtours, as may appear by viewing the places Epheſ. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. Acts 20. 28, 29, 30, 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power, Juriſdiction, and Government in Peter, it proves every Biſhop, and Presbyter to be alſo a ſupreme Head, and Governour over the Church of God. 2. That Peter had no ſuch Headſhip of Government, and Juriſdiction given him in thoſe words John 21. 17, 18. is proved by the deſcription of the perſons to whom theſe acts of feeding were to done, they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Chriſt, not Goats, now to the Lambs and Sheep of Chriſt no act of lordly rule, ſuch as impoſing Laws, excommunicating, depriving, or the like acts, in which the Pope placeth his power of Juriſdiction could be lawfully done, nor did Peter any ſuch acts: but teaching them, being guides to them, directing, exhorting and comforting them, (which the Pope regards not to do) were to be done to them. Wherefore it is plain, that lordly rule was not appointed by Chriſt, but fatherly care and tenderneſs in that injunction, and that which Chriſt enjoyned in his Commiſſion to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do, no… thinks it his work; but another thing, to wit, princely dominion, which Chriſt forbade. 3. The third thing ſuppoſed is, that becauſe the terms are indefinite, [my Lambs, my Sheep] therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep, even the whole Catholick Church; which if true, then it is falſe which Paul ſaith, Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumciſion was committed to him, and the Gospel of the circumciſiou unto Peter, and verſ. 9. James, and Cephas, and John, did ſin againſt Chriſt's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowſhip, that Paul and Barnabas ſhould go to the Heathen, and James, Cephas, and John to the Circumciſion, and Paul did ill to ſtyle himſelf the Teacher of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he ſhould have boaſted in another mans line or rule, 2 Cor. 10. 15. ſith all places had been within Peter's line or rule, and he did ill to ſay, Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he ſhould be the Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt to the Gentiles, and never mention Peter's Supremacy, no not in that very Epiſtle which he wrote to the Church of Rome ſo much as once naming him, who was (if Papiſts ſay true) p. 161the Univerſal Biſhop and Biſhop of Rome, and ſate there at that time, when he wrote that Epiſtle: nor doth Paul ſalute him, when he ſalutes many of leſs note. As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any, therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Chriſt, it is very frivolous. For an indefinite term is not all one with an univerſal, unleſs the matter ſo require it, but in ſuch kinde of ſpeeche… as theſe it notes onelyonly indefinite particulars, as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we ſhould remember the poor, that is, ſo many as we could; and when Chriſt bids, Matth. 10. 8. Heal the ſick, cleanſe the lepers, raiſe the dead; it is meant without exceeption of any, yet not an injunction to heal every individual, or to raiſe every dead perſon, but ſuch as there was occaſion of healing and raiſing. And when Mark 16. 15. the Apoſtles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature; the Command is to preach to any one without exception, yet not to every individual, which had been impoſſible; ſo here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely, yet not all univerſally; which had been an impoſſible task. 4. It is ſuppoſed that John 21. 16, 17. was a Commiſſion conferring power, authority, rule, and that over the very Apoſtles themſelves, and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his ſpecial dilection of Chriſt. Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care, not dignity or authority of empire, and hath nothing in it of juriſdiction, as a Judge or Commander, but of faithfulneſs and diligence as a ſervant and guide. And in this the Apoſtles were equal to him. H. T. himſelf confeſſeth here, pag. 97. The Apoſtles were equal in their calling to the Apoſtleſhip; to which this of feeding the Sheep of Chriſt belonged; and therefore Peter reckons himſelf but a fellow Elder, and requires other Elders to feed as well as himſelf, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. & Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Epheſus are appointed foreign, to feed the Church of God, (which is as large an exppreſſion as is John 21. 16, 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headſhip in them as in Peter) And Paul counted himſelf not behinde the very chiefeſt Apoſtles, 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to …im nothing, Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him, but was equal to him. And to bid Peter to feed the Apoſtles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds. The Doctrine of the Goſpel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter, but of the Apoſtles in common, Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted perſons, and they were together, nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd, or by his direction, but by agreement, Gal. 2. 9. yea, they ſent Peter to Samaria, Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding, John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his ſpecial dilection, but a task enjoyned to him becauſe of his more open denial, three times charged on him, as he thrice denied Chriſt, and uſed as a ſtay of Peter's weakneſs, rather than a mark of his worthineſs, much leſs a proof of his Supremacy.

p. 162SECT. V.

Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren, and his priority of nomination, prove not his Supremacy.

THe ſecond Argument of H. T. is this, He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith, and is generally ſet b…fore others in the Scripture, muſt needs be greater than thoſe others in power and dignity. But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apoſtles in the faith, and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures, therefore St. Peter was above the reſt of the Apoſtles in power and dignity, and therefore the Head and Primate of the reſt.

Anſw. The Concluſion it ſelf might be granted, and yet the ſupreme Headſhip not proved. The power (ſaid Hart Conf. with Rainold, chap. 1. diviſ. 2.) which we mean to the Pope by this Title of Supreme Head is, that the Government of the whole Church throughout the World doth depend of him: in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all Cauſes of Faith, of ruling Councils as Preſident, and ratifying their D…crees; of ordering and confirming Biſhops and Paſtours; of deciding Cauſes brought him by Appeals from all the coaſts of the Earth, of reconciling any that are excommunicate, of excommunicating, ſuspending, or inflicting other Cenſures and Penalties on any that offend, yea, on Princes and Nations; finally, of all things of the like ſort for governing of the Church, even whatſoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practiſing of Diſcipline in the Church of Chriſt. Now a perſon may be above others in power and dignity, yea, the Head and Primate of them, and yet not have this power. The Lord Chief Juſtice of one of the Benches, the Speaker of the Parliament, Chair-man of a Committee, Duke of Venice, Preſident in a Council of Biſhops, the Head of a College, the Dean of a Cathedral, may have power and dignity above other Juſtices of the ſame Bench, over Counſellours in the ſame Council, over Knights and Burgeſſes in the ſame Parliament, Prelates in the ſame Council, Fellows in the ſame College, Canons in the ſame Chapter, and in a ſort Primates and Heads of the reſt, yet not ſuch ſupreme Heads over the reſt, as the Popes claim to be. Yea, notwithſtanding ſuch power, he may be limited ſo as that he cannot act without them in making any Laws, or paſſing any Sentence binding, but they may act without him, and legally proceed againſt him. So that the Concluſion might be yielded; and yet the Popes Supremacy not proved. The truth is, the Pope claims ſuch a vaſt and monſtrous power in Heaven, and Earth, and Hell, as exceeds the abilities of any meer mortal man to diſcharge, and is, as experience ſhews, the Introduction to a world of miſeries and oppreſons. But let us view his proof of the power of Peter, which H. T. aſcribes to him.

T…e Major, ſaith he, is proved, becauſe the ſtronger is not confirmed by the weaker, nor the leſs worthy to be ſet before the more worthy, generally ſpeaking.

Anſw. This doth not prove his Major, for a perſon may be weaker and leſs worthy, and yet above others in power and dignity. Queen Elizabeth was a p. 163Woman, and ſo weaker in reſpect of her Sex, and perhaps leſs worthy in reſpect of parts than ſome of her great Commanders and Privy Counſellours. Will H. T. ſay ſhe was below them in power and dignity? Many a Father and Maſter may be weaker and leſs worthy, and yet ſuperiour in power and dignity. Many a Prelate is ſtronger in knowledge and wiſdom, and more worthy in reſpect of holy life, than many Popes, I will not onelyonly ſay, than Pope Joan and Bennet the Boy, but alſo than Pius the ſecond or any other of the beſt of their Popes; and yet H. T. will not yield ſuch Prelates to be above Popes in power and dignity. Me thinks he ſhould yield Athanaſius to be ſtronger and of more worth than Liberius, Hi…rom than Damaſus, Bernard than Eugenius, and yet he would be loath to aſcribe more power and dignity to them than to the Pope. Nor is it true, that the ſtronger is not confirmed by the weaker, whether we mean it of moral or natural ſtrength or weakneſs and confirmation. Apollos was confirmed by Priſcilla, David by Ab…gail, Naaman by his ſervant. Nor if by [generally ſpeaking] be meant very frequently, is the ſpeech true, that the more worthy is ſet before the leſs worthy. I think in the Acts of the Apoſtles Barnabas is more often before Paul than after, as Acts 11. 30. & 12. 25. & 13. 7. & 14. 12, 14. & 15. 12. I am ſure in the Holy Ghoſt's Precept, Acts 13. 2. whereupon they were ordained, and in the Decree of the Apoſtles, Acts 15. 25. Barnabas is firſt. Will H. T. ſay Barnabas was more worthy than Paul? Me thinks a man ſhould be aſhamed to utter ſuch frivolous toys in ſo weighty a matter, and fear to aſcribe to a ſinfull man ſo great and immenſe a Dominion on ſuch ſlight pretences.

But how doth he prove his Minor? The Minor, ſaith he, is proved, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not, and then being at length converted, confirm thy Brethren, St. Luke 22. 31. The names of the twelve Apoſtles are theſe, the firſt Simon who is called Peter, &c. St. Matth. 10. 2. St. Mark 3. St. Luke 2. and Acts the 1.

Anſw. The Text doth not ſay, Confirm the Apoſtles in the faith, nor do we finde that they did, but that he doubted as well as they, Mark 16. 14. yea, there is mention of another Diſciples believing the Reſurrection afore Peter, John 20. 8, 9. yea, Paul ſeems to have confirmed Peter in the faith, when he walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 14. & Acts 14. 22. Paul and Barnabas are ſaid to confirm the ſouls of the Diſciples, and Judas and Silas did the ſame Acts 15. 32. So that this Act ſhewes no Headſhip in Peter, nor any privilege at all, much leſs ſuch a ſupreme Headſhip over the Apoſtles, as H. T. allegeth it for, but a common duty of charity, which not onelyonly may but muſt be done by an equal or inferiour, to an equal or ſuperiour. Sure, if Paul had known of this as a Privilege in Peter he would not have ſaid, that he went not up to the Apoſtles before him, nor conferred with fleſh and blood, Gal. 16. 17. and that Peter added nothing to him, Gal. 2. 6. As for his being preferred generally before the reſt, it is not proved by his being named before the reſt: he may be named after, who is preferred before, as Paul is after Barnabas: nor do the four Texts expreſs a general or frequent priority of nomination, three expreſſing but one and the ſame act of Chriſt, and the Catalogue being varied in the order of the reſt, ſome Evangeliſts reckoning Andrew next Peter, ſometimes James, and in like manner the order altered in ſome others, ſhews, that the order of nomination imported no Privilege: yea, p. 164ſ…metimes Peter is named after Andrew, John 1. 44. who had this Privilege to bring Peter to Chriſt, verſ 41 ſometimes after Paul and A…ollos, 1 Cor. 1. 12. & 3. 22. and other Apoſtles, 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 2. 9. which ſhews that John and Paul underſtood not, that any ſuch Primacy or Prerogative was given to Peter by his nomination firſt, as Papiſts aſſert thence; for if they had they would not at any time have inverted the order. And therefore however a Primacy of order may be given to Peter, yet 1. There is no neceſſity we ſhould yield the acknowledgement of it to be a Duty impoſed, much leſs a perpetual Privilege of Right belonging to him. 2. That ſuch Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apoſtles, no more than that the ſenior Fellow of a College is ſuperiour in power above the reſt, becauſe he is firſt written in the College Book, or the Fore-man in a …ury is ſuperiour, becauſe he is firſt called.

SECT. VI.

The late Popes of Rome are not Succeſſours of Peter.

H. T. adds, What hath been ſaid to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves alſo the Primacy of his Succeſſour the Pope of Rome.

Anſw. THe proof of a Primacy is ſhort of the proof a Supremacy, which was the thing H. T. undertook; there is a Primacy of order, where there is not a Supremacy of power. And the ancient Churches which gave the Biſhop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jeruſalem, and Conſtantinople, that is, to ſit in a general Council higheſt, and to have ſome other Privileges, yet did never acknowledge the Biſhop of Rome their ſupreme Head, but reſiſted this claim, when it began to be uſurped. That Primacy which was given to the Biſhop of Rome was given him chiefly becauſe of the dignity and power of the City: Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes uſed to ſerve their Deſign in lifting up the Roman Biſhop. But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City, as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Biſhops: from whence when the Seat of the Empire was tranſlated to Conſtantinople, the Biſhop of it was made a Patriarch, equal to the Biſhop of Rome, and for a time contended for preheminence above him. It was not at firſt by reaſon of Peter's imagined Headſhip, or any ſucceſſion to him, that the Biſhop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs: but by reaſon of the amplitude and eminency of Rome, as the third Canon of the ſecond Conſtantinopolitan, and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils ſhew. As for Succeſſion to Peter it is contrary to Scripture, that the Apoſtles ſhould have Succeſſours as Apoſtles, ſith they were onelyonly to be Apoſtles, who were Witneſſes of Chriſt's Reſurrection, which neither the Roman Biſhops, nor any after the Age in which the Apoſtles lived, could be. That they were either fixed Biſhops of certain places, or did appoint any to ſucceed in their Apoſtleſhip is falſe. All Apoſtles were by ſpecial election of Chriſt, thoſe that came after were by election of men, and ſucceeded the Apoſtles in preaching the Goſpel, but not in Apoſtleſhip, nor did the Apoſtles make Biſhops p. 165of certain places their Succeſſours, but every Paſtour, who preached the faith aright, was their Succeſſour, and ſo are all Goſpel Preachers at this day. John Calvin at Geneva did ſucceed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin, or Barberin, or Ghiſi, or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years. Till the Popes prove themſelves Preachers of the Goſpel as Peter was, they vainly talk of Succeſſion to him As of late they have been they have been Succeſſours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter.

SECT. VII.

The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy.

OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the firſt is out of Damaſcen a late corrupt Writer, and he cites it out of Pſeudo Dionyſius the Areopagite's tale proved to be ſuch by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart, chap. 8. diviſ. 2. and from that place, in which the contrary, to what it is alleged for, to wit, Peter's Supremacy, may be evinced, in that the Authour, who ever he were, makes the power of binding and looſing to be given to all the Apoſtles, There ſaith H. T. Peter is ſtyled the ſupreme and moſt ancient top of Divines: which though it have no credit there, being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damaſcen, and that countefeit Dionyſius: yet were it granted, that Dionyſius the Arcopagite ſhould have ſo written, as he ſaith he did, terming Peter, the ſupreme and moſt ancient top of Divines, this would not infer that he was the univerſal Paſtour of the Church with ſuch a power of juriſdiction, as this Authour aſſerts he had over the whole Church, even the Apoſtles themſelves. For this doth not expreſs ſupremacy of power, but of knowledge, and aſſerts his eminency for underſtanding Theology, to which me thinks H. T. ſhould not annex the ſupremacy of juriſdiction and power, leſt that ſome ſuch as Aquinas, Andradius, or ſome other challenge the Popedom, which is ſeldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity, but rather the moſt learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy: even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth, that Cardinal Sirlet, though he were a man of great learning, was rejected, as not fit to be choſen Pope; ſuch as Bellarmine, Tolet, Baronius, are not choſen to be Popes, but ſuch crafty men as Paul the third, or ſuch ſtout ſpirits as Paul the fourth, or ſuch as are great Canoniſts and Politicians, that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Chriſt, are choſen for Popes, yea, men ſo ignorant in Divinity, and ſo unfit to take the charge of Souls have been choſen for Popes, that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years paſt there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Myſtery of the Goſpel, or any meaſure of godlineſs competent for a Pariſh Prieſt. Yea, Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccleſ. cap. 9. is feigned to aſſert that there may be members of the body of Chriſt, who are no parts of it as a living body, but onelyonly as inſtruments, leſt otherwiſe the Pope being proved evil ſhould be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Chriſt's body, thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the univerſal Church, being conſcious that without p. 166that ſhift the Popes would all or moſt of them be caſhiered out of the Church of Chriſt as not ſo much as parts of Christ's body, much leſs Heads, by reaſon of their notorious pride, luxury, cruelty, perfidiouſneſs, covetouſneſs, blaſphemy, deceit, and whatſoever vice might ſhew them to be children of the Devil. Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. adverſ. haereſ. cap. 3. in the ſecond Age, in which it is ſaid, All Churches round about ought to reſort to the Roman Church by reaſon of her more powerfull Principality, and that it was the greateſt and moſt ancient, founded by Peter and Paul. For whether the word convenire be to be tranſlated reſort, or agree to, or go together with, (which is ſomewhat uncertain) it cannot be underſtood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World, for that had been an impoſſible thing, and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the ſame place who directs them that were in Aſia to Epheſus and Smyrna for the ſame end, but he means of the parts of the Weſtern Empire, ſuch as Lyons was in France where he was Biſhop, and ſuch parts as were nearer Rome; and it is manifeſt that he makes Ro… no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Epheſus, referring the Inquiſitor into the tradition Apoſtolical to apply himſelf to theſe, as well as it for information; nor doth he make the reſort to be to the Church of Rome always, but becauſe at that time there was a ſucceſſion of men that knew the Apoſtles, or had the Doctrine of Chriſt delivered from them, among whom he reckons Linus as made Biſhop by Peter while he lived, and ſo no Succeſſour to Peter; but if Peter were a Biſhop of Rome, (which Papiſt ſay, but we deny) there were two Biſhops of Rome together, yea, he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul, not by Peter onelyonly, by reaſon of which tradition, though either falſe or uncertain, he judged there was the beſt aſſurance to be had of the Apoſtles Doctrine about God the Creatour againſt Valentinus, and the rather, becauſe he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna, who was an acquaintance of John the Evangeliſt, for which reaſon he directs alſo to him. As for the more potent Principality, which Irenaus ſpeaks of, whether it be meant of the Church or the State Eccleſiaſtical or Civil it is uncertain; if of the Civil Principality, becauſe then it was the Seat of the Empire, the neceſſity of reſort thither muſt be becauſe civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occaſions, and then they might inform themſelves being there moſt commodiouſly; if of Eccleſiaſtical Principality, yet there is nothing that ſhews it meant of univerſal juriſdiction and power over all Churches, but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in thoſe parts by reaſon of the eminency of their Founders, and ſucceeding Teachers who were in thoſe times of great note for purity of Doctrine and conſtancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs. And indeed were the queſtion now between us and any ſuch as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apoſtles taught about another God beſides the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the Church of Rome had ſuch Biſhops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apoſtles, or received their tradition from them ſo near to the Apoſtles days as the Roman Biſhops did then, we ſhould alſo think it meet in ſuch a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine. But in ſo doing we ſhould not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See, p. 167nor did ever Irenaeus intend it, who is known to have oppoſed Victor Biſhop of Rome, when he excommunicated the Aſian Biſhops for varying from him in the keeping of Eaſter, as Euſebius reports, Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 5. cap. 22, 23, 24.

The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epiſt ad Roman. (waving other Exceptions againſt Citations out of that Commentary, as being ſo altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's, what not) were they as H. T. ſets them down (which I cannot examine now for want of the Book) yet they prove not Peter's ſupremacy of power over the Apoſtles. He might have the chief charge of feeding Chriſt's Sheep, and the Church be founded on him, yet have no juriſdiction over the Apoſtles, and the Church be founded on the other Apoſtles as well as on him, as hath been ſhewed before in this Article, Sect 4.

As for Cyprian's words, calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church, cited by H. T. as in an Epiſt. ad Julian: I finde no ſuch Epiſtle in Cyprian's Works, but in an Epiſtle ad Jubian…m concerning Baptiſm of Hereticks, I finde theſe words about the beginning of the Epiſtle, Nos autem qui Eccleſiae unius caput & radicem tenemus, that is, But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church, &c. in which Peter is not named, nor do I finde any thing that ſhould infer that by the Head and Root of one Church, he means Peter but Chriſt, whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onelyonly Head of his Church, and having alleged immediately before one Baptiſm, as it is Epheſ. 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord, mentioned verſ. 5. as after alſo he mentions one Faith, or elſe the meaning is this, we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one, and the Head and Root of the faithfull: of which ſeveral particular Churches are members and branches. Nor, did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church, would it be for H. T. his purpoſe, unleſs he meant it in reſpect of univerſal Juriſdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Succeſſours Biſhops of Rome, which is not proved, and there may be another reaſon given of ſuch a Title given to Peter's perſon onelyonly, becauſe of his eminent confeſſion, Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching, Acts 2. & 10, &c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair, or rather the Biſhoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there, yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy, but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there. Yea, it is certain out of his Treatiſe of the Unity of the Church, and his Epiſtle to Cornelius mentioned before, and his oppoſition to Pope Stephanus, that Cyprian did account all Biſhops equal, and the Biſhops of Africa equal in Juriſdiction to the Roman Biſhop, and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue, from whom he diſſents, and to whom he denied Appeals, and whom he reproved of ambition and pride, when he ſought to impoſe his Judgement on others, contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Biſhops beſides Aſiaticks held, and therein oppoſed the Biſhop of Rome. And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now aſſerted.

Of thoſe which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age, not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Juriſdiction over the Apoſtles and Chriſtians, which the Romaniſts claim as belonging to the Pope over all Biſhops and Churches, p. 168but either a primacy of order, or preheminence of gifts, or zeal, or eſteem, or uſe in moderating in Aſſemblies. The words which ſeem to be moſt for it are falſly aſcribed to Chryſoſtom. For however Trapezuntius have tranſlated them, yet in the four and fiftieth Homily (as it is in Eaton Print) the words are not as H. T. cites them, The Paſtour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fiſherman. But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath theſe words, And I ſay unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church, that is, on the faith of confeſſion or confeſſed. There he ſhews that many ſhould believe, and raiſeth up his minde, and makes him Paſtour. And after on verſ 19. Theſe things he promiſeth to give him, to ſhew a Fiſherman ſtronger than any Stone or Rock, all the World oppugning.

If Optatus call Peter the Head of the Apoſtles, it is meant, as is frequent in Scripture and other Writers, to call the forwardeſt, and leader, or firſt in order the Head of the reſt. But the words Apoſtolorum Caput Petrus inde Cephas appellatus, gives occaſion to conceive theſe words inſerted in Optatus, who it is likely would not have given ſo inept a derivation of the word Cephas, as if it were from the Greek foreign a Head.

The words in Auguſtin Serm. 124. de tempore (not as H. T. 12. de 4. temporibus, which ſhews that he cites this paſſage without reading it, and it is likely he did ſo in the reſt) have no likelihood to be Auguſtine's, thoſe Sermons being nothing like Auguſtine's Writings, nor is it likely that Auguſtine would have called Peter the Foundation of unmovable Faith, or have made the ſin of denying Chriſt, exiguae culpae, a ſmall fault. The words in the eighty ſixth Epiſtle ad Caſulanum are either deceitfully or ignorantly alleged, they being not the words of Auguſtine, but of Urbicus, whom he refutes. For ſo the words are, Peter alſo (ſaith he, that is, Urbicus) the Head of Apoſtles, the Door-keeper of Heaven, and Foundation of the Church, Simon being extinct, who had been a Figure of the Devil, not to be overcome but by Faſting, taught the Romans that thing, whoſe Faith is declared to the whole World of Lands.

The words of Auguſtine, of whom Peter the Apoſtle by reaſon of the Primacy of his Apoſtleſhip bore the perſon, &c. tract. ultimo in Joannem, being recited at large are ſo far from proving the Supremacy which Romaniſts aſcribe to him, that they are againſt the principal grounds, by which they endeavour to prove it, and therefore I will recite them at large. This (following Chriſt) the Church doth, bleſſed by hope in this ſorrowfull life, of which Church Peter the Apoſtle by reaſon of the Primacy of his Apoſtleſhip bare the perſon by a figured generality. For ſo much as pertains to him properly he was one man by nature, by grace one Chriſtian, by more abundant grace one and the ſame firſt Apoſtle. But when it was ſaid to him, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, and whatſoever thou ſhalt binde on Earth ſhall be bound alſo in Heavens, and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth ſhall be looſed alſo in the Heavens: he ſignified the whole Church, which in this World is ſhaken with divers temptations, as it were ſhowres, flouds, and tempeſts, and falls not, becauſe it is founded upon the Rock, from whence Peter alſo took his name: For the Rock is not called from Peter, but Peter from the Rock, Petrus a Petra, as Chriſt is not called from a Chriſtian, but a Chriſtian from Chriſt. For therefore, ſaith the Lord, upon this Rock will I build my Church, becauſe Peter had ſaid, Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God. Therefore he ſaith, Upon this Rock which thou haſt p. 169confeſſed will I build my Church. For Chriſt was the Rock upon which Foundation Peter himſelf alſo was built. For no man can lay other Foundation beſides that which is laid, which is Chriſt Jeſus. The Church therefore which is founded on Chriſt received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens in Peter, that is, the power of binding and looſing ſins. For what the Church is by propriety in Chriſt, that is, by ſignification, Peter in the Rock: by which ſignification Chriſt is underſtood to be the Rock, Peter the Church. In which paſſage though there are conceits not right, yet clear it is that Peter's primacy is here aſſerted to be onelyonly in this that he repreſented the whole Church, that the Rock on which it is built is Chriſt, that he had his firſt Apoſtleſhip by more abundant grace in that he was made a figure of the whole Church to ſignifie, its unity, that in him the whole Church had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, that is, the power of binding and looſing ſins: which points I preſume, the Romaniſts now will not avow.

That which he cites out of the council of Nice, Can. 39. Arab. is but a late deviſed thing thoſe Arabick canons being forged, there having been but twenty in all in that council, in the fifth of which number the Pope is equalled with other Patriarchs. And the council of Chalcedon Act. 16. is falſly alleged, as if it aſcribed all primacy and chief honour of the Pope of Rome, ſith it makes the Pope and other Patriarchs, equal in Juriſdiction within their circuit or Province, notwithſtanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates, and the flattery of ſome there, and that preheminence which the Pope had was of order or place, not of power, nor that by divine inſtitution for Peter's ſake, but by humane allowance, by reaſon of the dignity of the City of Rome:

SECT. VIII.

The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10, 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Popes Supremacy.

H. T. adds after his faſhion, Objections ſolved. Object. Pilate had power over Chriſt himſelf. Thou ſhouldeſt not (ſaith he) have any power againſt me, unleſs it were given thee from above, John 19. 11. therefore temporal Princes are above the Pope. Which is ſtrengthened by Chriſt's diſclaiming a worldly Kingdom, John 18. 36. ſaying, Who made me a Judge over you? Luke 12. 14. declining the being made a King, John 6. 15.

Anſw. I Diſtinguiſh your Antecedent: he had a power of permiſſion over Chriſt I grant; a power of Juriſdiction I deny, and ſo do all good Chriſtians. Nor is your Conſequence leſs to be denied, ſpeaking of ſpiritual things, and things belonging to Church-government, in which we onelyonly defend the Popes Supremacy, and that without all prejudice to Princes and chief Magiſtrates in their Supremacy of temporal affairs.

I reply, this Objection is moſt directly againſt the Popes Supremacy in temporal things, which this Authour after Hart, and ſundry others, ſeem not to allow the Pope, though Carerius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and others defend it, page missing p. 172places it is foreign, in the third of Lu. 22. 25. upon another occaſion the ſtrife of the Diſciples at Chriſt's laſt Supper who of the Apoſtles ſhould be the greater, our Lord Chriſt doth expreſly determine, the Kings of the Nations, foreign, that is have dominion over them, aud they that rule over them are called Benefactours, but you not ſo, and in all theſe places in the vulgar Latin (which the Papiſts are bound to follow) it is, Dominantur corum, or eis, & poteſtatem exercent in eos, or poteſtatem habent ipſorum, or ſuper eos, in none of the places doth that Tranſlation expreſs the words, as importing tyrannical rule according to their own will without reſpect to the good of the perſons ruled; and the tranſlating of it by H. T. [over-rule] and noting that it is foreign, as importing a forbidding onelyonly to lord it over Inferiours, is not right, it being in Luke 22. 25. onelyonly foreign, they have rule over them. And that where it is foreign, it doth not forbid onelyonly tyrannical dominion, but alſo any dominion at all over one another is apparent from many Arguments in the Text. 1. From the occaſion, which was the petition and contention, in oppoſition to which this anſwer being made Chriſt muſt be conceived to forbid what they ſought for, elſe it had not been appoſite to the buſineſs: but they ſought not tyrannical dominion, but the higher ſeat and chief dignity and power, or as Chriſt's anſwer, Luke 22. 26. foreign, intimates, they ſtrove for ſeniority or priority of order, and foreign, verſ. 24. and Matth. 20. 27. Mark 10. 44. foreign, ſhews, that the thing they ſought was not Supremacy, but onelyonly priority; therefore our Lord Chriſt forbids not onelyonly tyrannical dominion, but the higher ſeat, chief dignity and power, and the affecting ſeniority or priority over or before one another. 2. From the ſubjects whoſe dominion is forbidden, who are termed not Tyrants, but Kings of the Nations, foreign, that have authority, Luke 22. 25. in Matth. 20. 25. foreign, the Princes, or Rulers, or Leaders of the Gentiles, foreign, and the great ones, in Mark 10 42. yet more diminutively, foreign, thoſe that ſeem or are accounted to rule or lead the Nations, foreign, their great ones. Which terms do plainly ſhew that theſe, whoſe dominion was forbidden to the Apoſtles, were the Rulers which were eſteemed and accepted by thoſe to whom they were Rulers, and had lawfull authority; and therefore ſuch rule is forbidden, as the beſt Rulers uſed among the Nations, and not onelyonly tyrannical, and meer lording it over one another after their own will. 3. The word foreign, however it may be ſometimes meant of meer lordly forcible rule againſt the will and good of the perſon ruled, yet here it cannot be meant ſo, ſith foreign to uſe dominion at all, and to have power at all over one another is forbidden, Luke 22. 25. as well as foreign, to have abſolute, lordly, arbitrary, forcible dominion. 4. This is further confirmed in that foreign, is as well forbidden as foreign, to have authority or power, as well as to have dominion, and that which is expreſſed by the compound in Matthew and Mark is foreign, the ſimple, in Luke, which is uſed ſtill of rule without abuſe. 5. In Luke it is forbidden to be called foreign, which is a word that ſignifies Benefactours, and though to be Benefactours is not forbidden, yet it is forbidden to be ſo called, that is, to affect that Title, which implies one to be under another, and to p. 173be beholden one to another, as perſons that could gratifie one another in beſtowing favours, granting petitions one to another, beſtowing preferments or refuſe, which doth imply ſuperiority in ſome ſort, and ſuch a dependence one on another as the Apoſtles were not to have. 6. The additional ſpeech of Chriſt commanding in ſtead of dominion Matth. 20. 26. 27. Rather Miniſtery and ſervice ſhews he would have none among them ſuperiour, but all equal. 7. Chriſt's propounding his own Example, Matth. 20 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 22. 27. as that which they were to follow evinceth the ſame. And though it is true he was their Maſter and Lord, John 13. 13. yet both there verſ 14, 15. and here he propounds himſelf an Example onelyonly in ſervice. 8. He expreſſeth that which he would have them to be ſo emphatically, that he not onelyonly forbids that which all counted unlawfull, to wit, tyrannical rule, but alſo requires in thoſe places ſuch a mutual debaſement, voluntary ſubjection, condeſcenſion, Miniſtery yielding to each other as takes away all aſſuming of ſo much as was lawfull in others, even the taking to themſelves priority of order or place, precedency, ſeniority affected, empire or rule over one another, as the words Matth. 20. 26, 27. Mark 10. 43, 44. Luke 22. 26. do plainly ſhew. 9 This is confirmed by other places upon a like occaſion, Matth. 18. 1. 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33, 34, 35. Luke 9. 46, 47. in which places Chriſt reſolves them that they ſhould be as a little childe, that aſſumes not empire, but is humble and accounts others as equal to him. 10. It is further evident from Luke 22. 28, 29. 30. that Chriſt having forbidden Supremacy or ſuperiority in any of them among themſelves doth promiſe them a Kingdom afterwards, and that then they ſhould be in his Kingdom, and eat and drink at his Table, and ſit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Iſrael in recompenſe of their abiding with him in his temptations. And in very truth, if there were no more than the conſideration of the preſent ſtate of Peter and the Apoſtles their deſpiſed and perſecuted condition and the future accidents that Chriſt foretold ſhould befall Peter in particular, John 21. 28. and the reſt of the Apoſtles, Matth. 24 9. no man could reaſonably imagine that Chriſt ſhould make Peter a viſible Monarch to rule the Apoſtles and the Church ſcattered over the World, he himſelf being in priſon and they alſo, and in ſo remote places, he unknown to them, and they to him, they having no acceſs or means of acceſs to him, nor knowing where to finde him, but all judicious men muſt conceive that this device of Peter's Supremacy over the Apoſtles and whole Church given by Chriſt is a meer impudent forgery, as was after Conſtantine's donation to the Biſhop of Rome, by which wicked means the Popes have uſurped the greateſt tyranny that ever was in the World.

Out of all this I gather, that Chriſt intended, 1. That there ſhould be no Kingdom, Monarchy, or Empire in any of the Apoſtles over the reſt, or any part of the Church till he came; but that their ſtate ſhould be a ſtate of ſervice in preaching the Goſpel, and laying the foundation of Chriſtianity till his coming. 2. That then he onelyonly would be King, and they all equals, ſitting upon twelve Thrones with him; and therefore that he would make none of them ſupreme Monarch over the reſt, nor Vicar to himſelf, as the Pope doth blaſphemouſly and arrogantly challenge.

And for that which H. T. ſaith, that Chriſt expreſly mentions a greater and a leſſer, a ſuperiour and inferiour among them, it is frivolouſly added, ſith it is p. 174plain that what in Luke is verſ. 26. he that is greater, he that is chief, is in Matthew 20. 26, 27. Mark 10. 43. He that would be great among you, he that would be firſt, and that which is in Matth. 20. 26, 27. let him be in Mark 10. 43, 44. ſhall be your Miniſter, your ſervant, is in Luke 22. 26. Let him be as the younger, as the Miniſter; which ſhews the meaning to be this, If any affect to be as the elder, greater or ſuperiour to the reſt, be ſo far from aſcribing or yielding to him ſuch precedency, greatneſs, or ſuperiority, that my will is, that you ſhould account of him as the younger, Servant and Miniſter to the reſt, and ſo it ſhall be, ye ſhall be all equal, none above another. This is the very drift and purport of Chriſt's determination, that there ſhould be no ſuperiority or inferiority among them, but an equality; and that which H. T. ſpeaks of the mention of ſuperiority and inferiority is meant of ſuperiority that might be affected, but not of any ſuperiority allowed by Chriſt, it being plainly forbidden.

And for what Bellarmine urgeth from the term foreign, as if Chriſt had appointed one Ruler or Prince in the College of the Apoſtles, though the term foreign, a Leader, is not the ſame with foreign, a Prince, or Ruler, yet if it did note Princedom, it is manifeſted, that Chriſt ſpeaks of a Prince among them not by due conſtitution, but by inordinate uſurpation; and therefore to infer from thence, as if Chriſt would have one ſuperiour over the reſt, when he determines there ſhould be equality, is the act of a man that is reſolved to be luſtily impudent. By this whole diſcourſe the Objection is fully vindicated againſt the ſhifts of H. T. and other Romaniſts, and ſtands thus. That Supremacy is not to be yielded to have been granted to Peter which Chriſt forbade to every one of the Apoſtles. But to be a ſupreme Ruler over the reſt Chriſt forbad to every one of the Apoſtles; therefore Chriſt forbad Peter to be a ſupreme Ruler over the reſt of the Apoſtles.

I yet add, that were it granted, that Chriſt did onelyonly forbid ſpiritual Superiours to lord it over Inferiours, this very grant would prove the Papal Supremacy, which Popes claim and exerciſe, to be certainly forbidden. For if ever there were a Superiour, that did lord it over Inferiours, the Pope is ſuch a one, yea, I may aver and eaſily prove it, that let all the tyranny and lording, which any Tyrants or Princes have exerciſed from the beginning of the World to this day be conſidered, they will be found incomparable to the Papal tyranny and lording over the Church of God. If this be not the higheſt lording to impoſe on mens conſciences ſuch Laws as Chriſt never impoſed, to enjoyn the holy, as they term it, inquiſition with rigour, to excommunicate, deprive, burn men and women old and young who yield not to the Popes Laws, though contrary to Chriſt's, to take on him to diſpenſe with Gods Laws, to challenge the defining of all controverſies, ſupremacy over all Councils, power to depoſe and deſtroy Emperours and Kings, if they acknowledge not his immenſe power, yea, if they be not his Butchers to kill their beſt and moſt peaceable Subjects, if he once term them Hereticks, to interdict a whole State for limiting by Law Donations to Eccleſiaſticks, and impriſoning notorious malefactours, who were Eccleſiaſticks, the uſe of divine ſervice, to ſubject a King to whipping on the Bare for the death of an Eccleſiaſtick not by him killed, to depoſe Emperours for inveſting Biſhops, to canonize Saints, whom he will, to be invocated even ſuch an one whoſe holineſs was diſobedience to his lawfull p. 175Prince, and to have a Feaſt proper to him, beſides innumerable other acts done againſt the Laws of God and Man I do utterly deſpair ever to know what it is to lord or tyrannize over others. Surely it is eaſier to praiſe Buſiris, or to juſtifie Dionyſius of Syracuſe, or Nero of Rome, and to acquit them from lording, than the Biſhop of Rome for many hundreds years laſt paſt, if we ſtand to the Relations of Writers of their own Church, who ſpeak too favourably of them.

H. T. proceeds. Object. Chriſt is the foundation (of the church) and other foundation can no man lay, 1 Cor. 3. 11. Anſw. Other principal foundation can no man lay, I grant, other ſubordinate, I deny: for that he himſelf hath laid, Peter, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my church, St. Matth. 16. 18. and the reſt of the Apoſtles were built on the foundation of them all, although not equally, Epheſ. 2. 20.

I reply, when it is ſaid, Chriſt is the Foundation of the Church, and other Foundation can no man lay, it is meant of a principal Foundation not excluding a ſubordinate. But ſith the term [Foundation] as hath been proved before in this Article, Sect. 2, 3. as applied to the Apoſtles doth not note ſettling or upholding by rule or dominion, but by teaching, the Papiſts who aſcribe to the Pope ſuch a Supremacy and Infallibility in teaching, as is proper to Chriſt, do lay another principal Foundation beſides Jeſus Christ, not ſubordinate, but coordinate to him. Which that they do is proved by two things, which are aſcribed by them to the Pope either by himſelf or with his Council.

1. That they can alter the plain expreſs precepts of Chriſt, as namely in determining, that it is not neceſſary that other faithfull people beſides the ſacrificing Prieſt ſhould drink the Wine in the Euchariſt, though the precept of Chriſt is as expreſs for all the faithfull drinking of it, as it is for their eating of the Bread, and that it is not lawfull for a Prieſt to marry, though the Scripture expreſly ſaith, Marriage is honourable in all men, Heb. 13. 4.

2. In enjoyning under pain of Hereſie, Excommunication, and Damnation things to be believed, and practiſed, which Chriſt never enjoyned to be believed or practiſed, as namely, Tranſubſtantiation, the unbloody Propitiatory Sacrifice, properly ſo called in the Maſs, Purgatory Fire, confeſſion of all a perſons known ſins into the ears of a Prieſt, the keeping of the Vow of a Monaſtick profeſſion, when the perſon cannot contain, and to live an idle begging life, when the perſon is able to work, and hath no other imployment, nor pretends to any, which is uſefull to men, beſides praying, which is the common duty of all Chriſtians. Now ſurely he that takes on him to alter Chriſt's commands, and to put his own in ſtead thereof doth make himſelf the principal Foundation equal to Chriſt, which is contrary to Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 11. and to Chriſt, Matth. 23. 8, 11. and ſo makes himſelf a Foundation coordinate, as indeed more than Chriſt, however he pretend himſelf the Vicar of Chriſt, or the authority of the Church for his Warrant. As for that which is ſaid of Peter here, it was anſwered before, Sect. 2, 3. that it doth not import any Rule or Dominion, but ſome peculiar ſucceſs in his preaching, beſides what others had, which was but a perſonal preheminence derivable to no Succeſſour, much leſs to the rank of Roman Biſhops in theſe laſt Ages, who never build the Church by preaching, but pull down Princes, and oppreſs thoſe that would build up Chriſt's Church. Yet it is obſervable, that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. p. 176to prove that the reſt of the Apoſtles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally, when the Text doth not at all mention the Apoſtles being built on the Foundation, but the Epheſian believers, nor are the Epheſian believers ſaid to be built on them unequally, on Peter as the ſupreme, on others after him, but on them all without any difference, and not onelyonly on them, but alſo on the Foundation of the Prophets, Chriſt alone being the chief corner-ſtone.

SECT. IX.

Cyprian, Hierome, Gregory, the councils of Conſtantinople, Chalcedon, Nice, are againſt the Popes Supremacy.

It is added thus by H. T. Object. St. Cyprian (de unit. Eccleſ.) ſays, The Apoſtles were equal in dignity. And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all, lib. cont. Jovin. Anſw. They were equal in their calling to the Apoſtleſhip I grant, in their power of Government and Juriſdiction I deny: And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was conſtituted, I grant; after a Head was constituted, I deny, and ſo do the Fathers, St. Cyprian ſaying in the ſame place, that Chriſt dispoſed the origen of unity beginning from one (Peter) And St. Hierome tells us, He choſe one of the Twelve, that a Head being conſtituted, the occaſion of Schiſm might be taken away.

I Reply, Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Eccleſia, are recited above Art. 5. Sect. 6. in which he expreſly ſaith thus, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apoſtoli quod fuit Petrus, pari conſortio praditi & honoris & poteſtatis, ſel exordium ab unitate proficiſcitur, ut Eccleſia una monſtretur: that is, That verily were alſo all the reſt of the Apoſtles which Peter was, endued with equal allotment of honour and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the church might be ſhewed to be one. So that the very words are expreſs, that all the Apoſtles were not onelyonly equal in their calling to the Apoſtleſhip, but alſo in power and honour, and that Peter was made a Repreſentative of all, ye… had no more power and honour than other Apoſtles; and for Biſhops he ſaith preſently after, Epiſcopatus unus eſt cujus a ſingulis in ſolidum pars tenetur, that is, Biſhoprick is but one, of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each. Which words plainly ſhew this to be his meaning, 1. That the Epiſcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Chriſt is but one and the ſame in all the World, even as the Church Catholick is but one and the ſame. 2. That each Biſhop hath but his part, none the whole, none is an univerſal Biſhop over the whole Church. 3. That each Biſhop, who hath his part, holds it in ſolidum, that is, wholely or intirely, the power and charge is as much in one as another. 4. That Epiſcopacy was firſt inveſted in Peter for all, that Epiſcopacy might be one, and undivided, and the Church one, ſo as that no Church break from another, nor any Biſhop be above another.

As for the words of Hierome, lib. 1. adverſ. Jovin. they are thus. At dick, ſuper Petrum fundatur Eccleſia, licet idipſum in alio loco ſuper omnes Apoſtolos p. 177fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo ſuper eos Eccleſiae fortitudo ſolidetur: tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur; ut capite conſtituto ſchiſmatis tollatur occaſio: that is, But thou ſayest (who argueſt for Marriage) upon Peter (a married man) the church is founded, although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apoſtles, and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, and equally upon them the ſtrength of the church is eſtabliſhed: yet therefore among twelve one is choſen, that a Head being conſtituted the occaſion of Schiſm might be taken away. In which words it is manifeſt that he makes the other Apoſtles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter, and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, and terms Peter not a Head in reſpect of Power or Juriſdiction over the reſt, but in reſpect of Order, that for want of it no occaſion of Schiſm might be. Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epiſtle to Euagrius, in which he determines that in the Scripture Biſhops and Elders were the ſame, that Peter calls himſelf a fellow-elder, and John an Elder, but after one was choſen who might be ſet before the reſt, that was done for a Remedy of Schiſm, leſt each one drawing to himſelf the church of Chriſt might break it. And then he makes the Church and Biſhop of Rome equal with other Churches and Biſhops.

If, ſaith he, Authority be ſought, the World is greater than a City. Whereſoever there is any Biſhop either at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Conſtantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the ſame merit, and of the ſame Prieſthood. Power of riches, and humility of poverty, makes a Biſhop neither higher nor lower. But all are Succeſſours of the Apoſtles. Whence theſe things may be inferred, 1. That Biſhops are not above Elders originally. 2. That their ſuperiority is by poſitive order. 3. That the Apoſtles were Elders. 4. That all Biſhops are their Succeſſours. 5. That the Biſhop of Rome is not above another Biſhop. 6. That the Authority of Rome is leſs than of the World.

Yet further ſaith H. T. Object. One Body with two Heads is monſtrous. Anſw. Not if one be principal, and the other ſubordinate or miniſterial onelyonly, as in our preſent caſe: ſo Chriſt is the Head of the Man, and the Man of the Woman, 1 Cor. 11. without any monſtroſity.

I reply, to make a thouſand metaphorical ſubordinate miniſterial Heads of the Church of Chriſt may be without monſtroſity. But to make a ſupreme viſible Head over the whole Church, aſcribing to him ſuch a power as agrees to none but Chriſt, nor can be exerciſed by any but Chriſt for the good of his body, hath monſtroſity in it, or rather treaſon againſt Chriſt. But ſuch a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papiſts induceth monſtroſity. The Minor is partly ſhewed before, and may be fully proved by inſtancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him, in defining what the whole Church is to believe, what is the ſenſe of Scripture, receiving Appeals from all places, judging cauſes, ſetting up and putting down Kings and Biſhops, and many more, wherein he arrogateth and uſurpeth that power to himſelf, which doth onelyonly agree to Chriſt, and can be exerciſed by none but him.

Again ſaith H. T. Object. St. Gregory rejects the name of Univerſal Arch-biſhop as Antichriſtian, lib. 7. indict. 2. Epiſt. 96. Anſw. He rejects it p. 178as it excludes all others from being Biſhops, I grant; as it onelyonly ſignifies one to be ſupreme and above all others, I deny, and ſo doth he himſelf, ſaying in the ſame Book (Epiſt 62.) if there be any crime found in Biſhops, I know no Biſhop but is ſubject to the See Apoſtolick. And lib 4. Indict. 13. Epiſt. 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apoſtle and Prince of the Apoſtles St. Peter, yet is not he called Univerſal Apoſtle, as if there were no other Apoſtles but he. You ſee in what ſenſe he rejects the word (Univerſal.)

I reply, Gregory not onelyonly rejected the Title of Univerſal Arch-biſhop or Patriarch, but alſo rejected it as proud, wicked, perverſe, profane, blasphemous, aud the Uſurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichriſt, and not onelyonly as not agreeing to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, but alſo as not agreeing to him or any of his Predeceſſours, lib. 6. Epiſt. 24. & lib. 4. Epiſt. 32. & 36. None of my Predeceſſours conſented to uſe this profane name of Univerſal Biſhop: none of my Predeceſſours ever took upon him this name of ſingularity, neither conſented to uſe it. We (the Biſhops of Rome) do not ſeek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us. Nor in the ſenſe onelyonly as H. T. denies it due to the Pope, as if it excluded all others from being Biſhops, but even in the ſenſe in which the Pope now uſurps it. For, 1. He rejects it in the ſenſe in which John of Conſtantinople did affect it. But he did not affect it as thereby aſſuming to himſelf to be the onelyonly Biſhop, but the ſupreme, which appears, 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Biſhops did agree to give it him, Habita Synodo ſeipſum Patriarcham univerſalem creaſſet, that is, Holding a Synod he had created himſelf univerſal Patriarch, Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory. But doubtleſs the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onelyonly Biſhop, for then they ſhould have unbiſhopt themſelves, which neither he nor they did. 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himſelf tells John himſelf, lib. 4. Epiſt 38. that he ſought this Title that he might ſeem to be under none, and he alone before all, that be endeavoured that by the appellation of univerſal Biſhop he might put under himſelf all the members of Chriſt, that he deſired to be called in the World not onelyonly the Father, but alſo the general Father, that he deſired by that word of elation to put himſelf before Biſhops, and to hold them under him, which ſhews he affected not to be accounted the onelyonly Biſhop, but the ſupreme. 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas, as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third, who ſpeaks thus. Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour, yet with great contention, that the See of bleſſed Peter the Apoſtle, which is the Head of all churches ſhould be both ſo called and accounted by all: which place indeed the Church of Conſtantinople endeavoured to challenge to it, ſometimes evil Princes favouring, and affirming that in that place ſhould be the firſt See where the Head of the Empire was. And Baronius Annal. Eccleſ. at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus, that the Roman Biſhop alone ſhould be called oecumenical or univerſal, but not the Conſtantinopolitan. And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. ſaith, They would equal the See of Conſtantinople to the Roman, and make it univerſal, ſpeaking of the Greeks in the buſineſs of John of Conſtantinople; whence it may be plainly gathered, that the thing which the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople affected, was p. 179not to be accounted the onelyonly Biſhop, ſo as that none but he ſhould be accounted a biſhop, but that he ſhould be the Head or Supreme of all Biſhops by reaſon of the Seat of the Empire there, and that this Gregory diſclaimed as proud. 4. That was affected by John, which he and Cyriacus his Succeſſour uſed for twenty years, but neither of them uſed it ſo by word or deed, as to exclude others from being Biſhops as well as themſelves (for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law, he terms them fellow-ſervants, Metropolitans, and Biſhops, to whom he writes, and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, when they term him oecumenical Arch-biſhop, yet ſtyle themſelves Biſhops and fellow-prieſts) but they would be accounted ſupreme or prime Biſhops of the whole Church, ſo as to be under none, but above all.

2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Univerſal Biſhop in the ſenſe of the ſupreme Biſhop, in that he, Regiſt. lib. 11. Epiſt. 54. reſolves thus If any man accuſe a Biſhop for whatſoever cauſe, let the cauſe b… judged by his Metropolitan. If any man gainſay the Metropolitan's judgement, let it be referred to the Arch-biſhop and Patriarch of that Dioceſe, and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws. And for what he addeth, that if a Biſhop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all, then is his cauſe to be heard and determined by the See Apoſtolick, which is the Head of all Churches, it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours, and though it prove that he claimed a reference of cauſes in difference between Biſhops within his Patriarchate, yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Biſhops were ſubject, much leſs through the whole World. And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches, doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any inſtitution of Chriſt, but a preheminence of order and ſome Eccleſiaſtical Privileges, by reaſon of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire. And hereby is underſtood what H. T. cites out of the ſeventh Book Epiſt. 62. of Greg. Epiſtles, Indict. 2. that it is not meant of all Biſhops univerſally, but of the Biſhops within that Patriarchate, but this was in caſe of fault onelyonly; for it follows, But when no fault requires it, all according to reaſon of humility are equals: So that Gregory doth not by that ſpeech ſhew that he had an univerſal ſupreme Juriſdiction and power over all Churches, ſo as that they were ſubject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith, but that he accounted the African Churches ſubject to his reproof, as he had a common care of the Church every where, in which Gregory himſelf and all other Biſhops and Churches are ſubject to any Biſhop whereſoever. Certainly Gregory had moſt abſurdly argued againſt the arrogance of John of Conſtantinople, calling the Title of univerſal Biſhop new, profane, proud, blasphemous, fooliſh, perverſe, and him a Fore-runner of Antichriſt whoſoever ſhould uſe it, if he had imagined it belonged to himſelf, or any Biſhop of Rome.

And for what H. T. allegeth, that John claimed to be univerſal Biſhop, as excluding all others, it is but an abſurdity which Gregory preſſed him with, as following upon it, not acknowledged by John, but rather denied, as when we urge men with abſurdities following their tenets which they do not own; and how he urgeth, it appears from his words, lib. 4. Epiſt. 38. when he ſaith to John, Thou deſireſt to tread under the name of Biſhops in compariſon of thy ſelf, which ſhew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Univerſal p. 180Biſhop, as if he would be the onelyonly Biſhop abſolutely, but comparatively to himſelf, in that ſenſe as he which is ſingular in ſome thing is ſaid to be alone, and as he who is not what he was, is ſaid not to be; and ſo Gregory chargeth him as if by conſequence he would exclude all others, and unbiſhop them in compariſon. And yet if Gregorie's words were underſtood to condemn no more than this, that any ſhould arrogate to himſelf the Title of Univerſal Biſhop, as if he were the onelyonly Biſhop and others but as his Vicars or Subſtitutes, all that Gregory imputes to the uſe of that Title in this ſenſe falls on the late Roman Biſhops, who deny that any Biſhop hath power of Juriſdiction but from them, that Biſhops are not immediately by divine right, but mediately from the Pope, concerning which what paſſed in the Council of Trent may be ſeen in the Hiſtory of Frier Paul in the ſeventh and eighth Book, in which may be ſeen how ſtifly the Italians and Jeſuits held it, and the Pope eluded the Spaniſh Biſhops.

Laſtly, that Gregory did diſclain ſuch a Supremacy as Popes now uſurp is manifeſt from the obedience which Gregory, lib. 1. Epiſt. 32 lib. 2. Epiſt. 61. 31. lib. 7. Epiſt. 1. and elſewhere acknowledged, he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his ſovereign Lord, and in that Epiſtle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's uſurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the moſt pious Lord Mauritius would vouchſafe to judge that very buſineſs which was in controverſie between John of Conſtantinople and himſelf about the Title of univerſal Biſhop, which he denied to Jo…n or to himſelf: nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour, as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears: which things are inconſiſtent with that Doctrine which the Papiſts now hold about the Popes Supremacy.

H. T. adds. Object. The firſt Conſtantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Conſtantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome. Anſw. In certain Privileges I grant, in original Authority or Juriſdiction I deny, and ſo doth the ſaid Council of Chalcedon, ſaying, We throughly conſider truly, t…at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-biſhop of old Rome, Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Conſtantinople ever approved by the Pope, though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick, and ſought but Primacy in the ſecond place and after it.

I reply, 1. Though it had been gainſaid by the Biſhop of Rome, yet there was no reaſon the oppoſition of one Biſhop ſhould weigh down the common conſent of the reſt. 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged neceſſary, but that the Synod could determine without him. 3. That Canon of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople was not gainſaid by the Pope that then was, nor many years after. 4. Gregory the Great eſteemed the four firſt general Councils as the four Goſpels without exempting that Canon. And it is manifeſt that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople next after the Roman, becauſe it was new Rome. And the Council of Chalcedon expreſly determined that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople ſhould have foreign equal Privileges with the Roman, which Privileges were the ſame that old Rome had, which could not be the firſt place in the Council, but was Power and Juriſdiction, and this they determined p. 181notwithſtanding the regret of the Popes Legates, who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Biſhop of Rome in the ſixth Canon of the Nicene Council, of which H. T. ſaith.

Object. The Council of Nice ſaith, Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Biſhop of Alexandria hath power over all theſe, becauſe the Biſhop of Rome alſo hath ſuch a cuſtome. Anſw. The Biſhop of Rome had a cuſtome to permit ſuch a power to the Biſhop of Alexandria; the Greek Text ſaith, Becauſe to the Biſhop of Rome alſo this is accuſtomed, which argues him to be above the other.

I reply, this Anſwer is frivolous, or rather impudent. For the ſame thing is allowed to the Biſhop of Alexandria, which was accuſtomed to the Biſhop of Rome, but that was not a power to permit any thing to the biſhops of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan, namely, to look to the Ordination of biſhops and compoſing of Differences. And the meaning is, that each of thoſe biſhops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, ſhould, according to the cuſtome of the biſhop of Rome in his, look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province, as Ruffinus expreſſeth the Canon, and the Arrbick and other Interpreters, and Paſchaſinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus, that the Biſhop of Alexendria ſhould have foreign power over all, becauſe ſo it was accuſtomed to the Biſhop of Rome. Which cannot be meant of all ſimply; For then it ſhould have been thus meant, the biſhop of Alexandria is to have power of all, becauſe the biſhop of Rome hath power of all, and ſo the biſhop of Alexandria ſhould be ſupreme biſhop as the Pope, and ſo in ſtead of one viſible ſupreme Head there ſhould be more, which Romaniſts brook not, but it muſt be meant of equal power and charge given to the biſhop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by cuſtome the Roman had in his. And for the inference from the words [Becauſe to the Biſhop of Rome alſo this is accuſtomed] that it argues him to be above the other, it is vain, it proving onelyonly the biſhop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the biſhop of Alexandria his power, but not greater, yea, it proves an equality between them, ſith it aſcribes the ſame to the one which was accuſtomed to the other.

SECT. X.

Of the Emperour's calling Councils, Pope Joan, Papists killing Princes excommunicate, not keeping Faith with Hereticks.

H. T. proceeds. Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and preſided in General Councils. Anſw. They called them inſtrumentally I grant, by way of ſpiritual Juriſdiction I deny. And they preſided alſo in them for peace and ornament true; for definition or judgement it is moſt falſe: that always was reſerved to the Popes. I will not ſit among them as Emperour (ſaith Conſtantine in his Epiſtle to Pope Leo about the ſixth Ge…ral Council) I will not ſpeak imperiouſly with them, but … one of them, and what the Fathers ſhall ordain I will execute. Emperours ſubſcribed Councils, … conſ…itution, but execution. God (ſaith Conſtantine to the Nicene Council) hath made you Prieſts, and given you power to judge us, but you may not be judged of men. In Ruffino.

p. 182I Reply, that the Emperours called the firſt General Councils, it is ſo manifeſt out of the Writings of the Councils extant, that H. T. could not deny it; that they called them inſtrumentally, (meaning doubtleſs as the Popes inſtruments) is ſo far from truth, that the Popes ſought to the Emperours to call them, as Leo Epiſt. 24. 26. 23. and in the ſixth General Council at Conſtantinople (of which H. T. ſpeaks) Pope Agatho ſaith, that he took care that they ſhould go to the Council according to the command of the Emperour, pro obedientia quam debuit, out of obedience he did ow to the Emperour. It is true, the Emperour did not call them by way of ſpiritual Juriſdiction. We conceive not, that the calling of perſons to meet to conſult of matters of Religion to be a point of ſpiritual Juriſdiction, who ever he be that calls them, whether Pope or Emperour: calling an Aſſembly is no part of Juriſdiction at all, it may be lawfully done by a brotherly invitation in many caſes, and the Aſſembly may be by agreement without any ſuperiority. Nor is there any ſpirituality in it, except in reference to the end, which doth not make it an act of ſpiritual Juriſdiction any more, than a Fathers, or Mothers, or Maſters, cauſing ſervants or children to meet to pray or learn a Catechiſm, or when King Lemuel's Mother made him learn holy Leſſons, Prov. 31. 1. H. T. here ſaith, The Emperours ſubſcribed to Councils in order to execution: and he mentions it as allowable, which hath as much of ſpiritual Juriſdiction as the calling of the Council, and yet he will not ſay, it was an act of ſpiritual Juriſdiction. And for preſiding it is certain, that Conſtantine the great did not onelyonly for ornament or peace, but alſo for direction or moderating their actions preſide in the Nicene Council, and that the Emperors Subſcriptions were for definitions, judgement, and conſtitution. it is apparent from the form of their Subſcriptions; nor were the Councils Determinations counted binding Laws without the Emperours confirmation, nor did the firſt Chriſtian Emperours execute what the Pope or Council would have them, but the Councils and Popes did ſupplicate the Emperour to execute their Decrees, and ſometimes did at the Emperours command execute his Decrees, though it is true alſo that the beſt Emperours did in their preſiding and calling of Councils decline magiſterial Impoſitions on the conſciences of Biſhops, and Determinations of Faith, but were willing to learn from them the truth, and in ſuch matters did refer the trial of Biſhops to other Biſhops, whom they choſe, as in the cauſe of Athanaſius, and ſometimes to others, as in the cauſe of the Donatiſts.

H. T. adds. Object. What think you of Pope Joan? Was ſhe an univerſal Biſhop alſo? Anſw. I think him rather a particular Fool who can believe ſo groſs a Fable: It was the credulous Relation of one Martinus Polonus a ſilly man (the onelyonly Authour for it, though Proteſtant Writers have falſly cited others) who hath ſufficiently diſcredited his own Narration; For he tells you, ſhe was born at Mountes in England; (there having never been any ſuch place …eard of) and that ſhe was bred up at Athens, an Univerſity not then in being, but deſtroyed many years before, a pretty likely tale.

p. 183I reply, that it was the Relation of more than one appears by Platina his words, which are, Fere plerique omnes affirmant, &c. almoſt all affirm it. Proteſtant Writers have produced rightly particularly Mr. Alexander Cook in his Dialogue of Pope Joan, a full Jury of Writers relating it, and thoſe ſome of them before Martinus Polonus, and as credible Hiſtorians, as thoſe times yielded, beſides the ſigns of the truth of the Relation, which are vindicated by him and others from the ſhifts by which Onuphrius and ſuch like Dawbers have endeavoured to evade their teſtimony. And me thinks H. T. writes too groſly in conceiving him a particular Fool that can believe it, when Platina, Sabellicus, Antoninus, Leonicus Chalcondyla, Marianus Scotus, Sigibertus Gemblacen…is, Matthaeus Palmerius, Volateranus, Nauclerus, Chriſtianus Maſſaeus, Joannes Parifienſis, Theodoricus Niem, Raviſius Textor, and others could believe it. As for the Exceptions here made, it is not true, that Martinus Polonus ſaith, that Pope Joan was born at Mountes (he would ſay M…ntz) in England, the words are Jo…nnes Anglicus natione Moguntinus, that is, John Engliſh by nation of Mentz, which may be true, that ſhe had the name of Engliſh by deſcent, yet born at Mentz in Germany, as many a man born in England hath the name of Iriſh, Scot, French, and I think Turbervile is a Norman name, yet preſume Henry Turbervile was born in England. And for Athens, that it was then deſtroyed, and no Univerſity is affirmed by him, not proved, but the contrary is ſhewed to have been probable out of the Subſcription of the ſixth Council, by the ſeventh Council, out of Paulus Acmylius, and others by biſhop Jewel Defence of the Apol. part. 4. ch. 1. diviſ. 1.

H. T. adds. Object. You Roman Catholicks, as I have heard, (if the Pope excommunicate a Tyrant or heretical Prince) hold it lawfull for his own Subjects to kill him. Anſw. You have heard a loud ſlander, we abominate and deteſt the Doctrine. It is defined by the Council of Conſtance, and therefore of faith with us, that it is heretical to affirm it lawfull for a Subject to kill his Prince upon any pretence whatſoever. Seſſ. 15.

I reply, What you now hold I know not, there are cauſes of jealouſie of you, that having found it diſadvantageous to you, you diſguiſe your ſelves and conceal your opinions till it may be for your advantage. But ſure heretofore the many Attempts againſt Queen Elizabeth by Popiſh Prieſts, eſpecially of the Jeſuites Order, ſome whereof were with the privity or inſtigation of Cardinals, if not Popes of Rome, the ſeditious Writing of William Allen, who was therefore thought fit by the Pope to be made a Cardinal, with Parſons, Creſwell, and ſuch like, the Bull of Pope Pius the fifth, the Gun-powder Treaſon againſt King James, and the Parliament 1605. with the acts and ſpeeches of Faux, Garnet, Greenwell, Hall, and others, and Pope Paul the fifth his Breves againſt taking the Oath of Allegeance with Bellarmine's Letter, and the Writings thereupon did make it appear then, that, how loud ſoever it might be, yet it was no ſlander to charge Roman Catholicks with that Doctrine. The praiſing of James Clement's fact in killing Henry the third of France by Pope Six…us the fifth, the attempt of Peter Barrier, of John Chaſtel a Novice of the Jeſuits, and the execrable Murder of Henry the fourth by Ravillac confeſſed to have been by the inſtigation of Jeſuits, and Mariana's book, with many other things cauſed the Univerſity and Parliament of Paris to charge ſome Roman Catholicks with that Doctrine: which it's not likely they would have p. 184done, and the King a while baniſh the Jeſuits had there not been ſufficient Proof. Yea ſince that time the books of Bellarmine, and Santarellus have been condemned by the Univerſity and Parliament of Paris, as teaching that Doctrine, and yet more books have been vented tending to the ſame, as in the Writings of Suarez and other Jeſuits may be found. Nor did I ever hear, that the Pope did by puniſhing the Traitors in England when they fled to Rome, or by condemning the Jeſuits Doctrine of killing Kings acquit Roman Catholicks from this accuſation. Yea whereas King James towards the end of his Reign propounded nine Queſtions to be anſwered by John Fiſher the Jeſuit, it is obſerved by Dr. Francis White, that he doth decline to anſwer directly the ninth Queſtion about depoſing Kings and giving away their Kingdoms, alleging that it touched a controverſie between the Pope and Princes, in which he makes ſhew of loathneſs to interpoſe, having a Letter dated, Aug. 1. 1614. from the general of his order not to write any thing thereof, having found it an unhappy courſe, but never declared againſt it, nor took the Oath of Allegeance, though the State knew it was eaſie for their general to alter the order, or to make an other order in private, and whatever order their general give, yet they are tied to do what the Pope requires of them. And the anſwers of the Jeſuites about Santarellus his book approved by their general, that they in France then diſavowed the Book, yet withall acknowledged, if they had been at Rome they would have done as their general did, ſhewed that they had diſavowed that Doctrine out of fear, and that at Rome it was held for cu…e…t. What they ſtill hold may be ſeen in the myſtery of Jeſuitiſm, and other Writings.

As for what H. T. allegeth out of the Council of Conſtance it ſatisfieth not, ſith all Roman Catholicks allow not that Council, which depoſed the Pope and choſe another, and determined the Council to be above the Pope, yea, Mariana de rege, &c. lib. 1. cap. 6. anſwers thus, But that Decree I finde not approved by Martin the fifth the Roman Pope. Nor indeed can Papiſts hold that which H. T. ſets down as the Council of Conſtance's definition, but that they muſt gainſay what the fourth Lateran Council under Innocent the third determined concerning the rooting out of Hereticks. Nor are Princes ſecured by the determination of the Council of Conſtance, or H. T. his avouching it to be of faith, ſith perhaps it is but one Doctor's opinion, or if it be the faith of more or all, yet they can hold King killing, and yet hold that Doctrine, alleging that a Prieſt is no Subject, nor a perſon excommunicate his Prince, and that however he may not kill him upon any pretence whatſoever, yet he may do it upon the Popes Excommunication as a juſt Sentence of a ſuperiour Judge; the words in that Council, Seſs. 15. (left out here by H. T. whether fraudulently or no, his own conſcience can tell beſt) being, non expectata ſententia, vel mandato judicis cujuſcunque, The Sentence or Mandate of any Judge whatſoever being not expected, which have a ſhew of limiting their other words, and intimate their allowing the killing of a Prince, when there is a Mandate or Sentence of a Judge, ſuch as they conceive the Pope to be. Nor have we any cauſe of confidence in H. T. as free from ſuch devices, if we mark what follows.

Object. Mariana the Jeſuit printed the opinion. Anſw. True, by way of p. 185Probleme he did, but his Book was condemned and publickly burnt by a Provincial Council of his own Order.

I reply, Doth H. T. think the Book is not now to be ſeen to detect his falſity? Or that the Memorials of theſe things are loſt, who goes about to excuſe Mariana or the Order of Jeſuits in this manner? Mariana did in his firſt Book of the Inſtitution of a King, chap. 6. write that James Clement by killing Henry the third King of France with a poiſoned Knife had gotten himſelf ingens nomen, a great name, that we conſider from all memory that they were greatly praiſed who attempted to kill Tyrants, and that it is a wholeſom cogitation, that Princes be perſwaded if they oppreſs the Common-wealth, if they be intolerable in vices and filthineſs, that they live in ſuch a condition that not onelyonly of right, but with praiſe and glory they may be killed. Which that they were more than a Probleme appears from his own words, This our Sentence certainly comes from a ſincere minde. And the ſad event of Ravillac's killing Henry the fourth of France by the inducement of that Book, and the Edict of the Parliament of Paris the eighth of the Ides of June, 1610. ſet down in the Continuation of Thuanus his Hiſtory, Tom. 4. lib. 3. upon which his Book was adjudged to be burnt: but that his Book was burned by a Provincial Council appears not, nor is it ſet down by H. T. when nor where, nor is it likely to have been burnt by a Provincial Council till after the Sentence of the Parliament of Paris, that thereby they might ſalve the credit of their Order.

But it is added. Object. At leaſt you hold the Pope can dispenſe with your Allegeance to Princes, and if …e dispenſe you are not bound to keep any faith with them or any Hereticks. Anſw. We hold that our Allegeance to Princes is not dispenſable by any Authority on earth; and are as ready to defend our Prince or civil Magiſtrate with the hazzard of our lives and fortunes even againſt the Pope himſelf if he invade them, as againſt any other Enemy. We eſteem our ſelves obliged to keep faith even with Infidels: And the Council of Trent hath declared, that to violate any leaſt point of publick faith given to Hereticks is a thing puniſhable by the Law of God and Man, Seſſ. 15 18. What this or that particular Doctor may hold, or the Popes flatterers, if he have any, adds nothing to the Creed of Catholicks, nor is it juſtly chargeable on the whole Church.

I reply, I am glad to read this paſſage, if this Authour mean plainly, as his words ſeem to import: yet ſee not ſufficient ſecurity to Princes given thereby, though this Authour ſhould mean ſo. For other Romaniſts may ſay as this Authour doth of others, What this or that particular Doctor holds adds nothing to the Creed of Catholicks, nor is it juſtly chargeable on the whole Church. Nor is this Proteſtation ſo full as to leave no ſtarting hole from it, if it be for advantage. It may mean, they will defend their Prince who is their Prince, yet not acknowledge Allegeance to their Prince, as being exempt from his Juriſdiction as Clergy-men, or their Prince ceaſing to be their Prince being an Heretick, or excommunicate, or worthy to be excommunicate, or they will defend their Prince againſt the invaſion of the Pope, but not againſt the Sentence of Depoſition, or they will defend him till they judge him an Enemy to the Faith or Catholick Church, but not any longer. And this Authour may, as ſome in caſe of Marriage conceive he is obliged to keep faith with In…idels, and yet p. 168not with Hereticks. And for the determination of the Council of Trent, Seſs. 15. 18. neither durſt Proteſtants then truſt to the ſafe conduct then given, and before and ſince ſad inſtances of Papiſts perfidiouſneſs have given too much occaſion to Proteſtants to ſuſpect the lurking of a Snake under the graſs, I mean ſome hidden deceit under a covert of fair words, eſpecially when we conſider this Authour a little before counted the definition of the Council of Conſtance to be of faith, Seſſ. 15. 18. In which Seſſ. 19. that Council (as it is in Binius) hath theſe words, The preſent holy Synod doth declare, that no prejudice to the Catholick faith, or to Eccleſiaſtick Juriſdiction is generated, or impediment can be, or ought to be made by any ſafe conduct granted by the Emperour, Kings, and other ſecular Princes to Hereticks, or defamed of Here…ie, thinking ſo to recall the ſame from their Errours, with whatſoever Bond they have bound themſelves, but that, the ſaid ſafe conduct notwithſtanding, it may be lawfull for a competent Judge, and Eccleſiaſtick to inquire of the Errours of ſuch perſons, and otherwiſe duly to proceed againſt them, and to puniſh them, as much as juſtice ſhall perſwade, if they ſhall refuſe ſtifly to revoke their Errours, although truſting to their ſafe conduct they have come to the place of judgement, who otherwiſe would not have come: nor doth he that ſo promiſeth, when he hath done what lies in him remain obliged by this in any thing. Which ſurely amounted then to as much as this (and hath been thouſands of times objected by Princes and others) that publick faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. And how little reaſon Proteſtants have to truſt Papiſts not onelyonly the actions of former Papiſts for a thouſand years paſt, but alſo of late their actings in Ireland, Poland, Piedmont, ſhew.

Whom he means by the Popes flatterers, or particular Doctors, I do not well underſtand: ſhould he call Bellarmine, Baronius, or ſuch like men ſo, perhaps he may be ſerved as Francis a St. Clara and others were. I judge H. T. to be a groſs Flatterer in maintaining the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, there being in this tenet no better than blaſphemous Antichriſtian flattery, aſcribing to ſome of the worſt and oftentimes moſt ignorant men that which is due to the Son of God. And for his Corollary, I deny the Major and Minor both, ſith that may be a true Church which hath neither local perſonal Succeſſion, nor conſpicuous Viſibility, nor ſuch Unity, Univerſality, Infallibility, Sanctity, Power of Miracles, Univerſal Biſhop as H. T. requires as neceſſary to a true Church, nor hath he made it plain, that theſe marks do agree to the preſent Roman Church or Biſhop, and no other, but his miſtakes in theſe are ſhewed. I follow him in the reſt.