Great Brittans little calendar: or, Triple diarie, in remembrance of three daies Diuided into three treatises. 1. Britanniæ vota: or God saue the King: for the 24. day of March, the day of his Maiesties happy proclamation. 2. Cæsaris hostes: or, the tragedy of traytors: for the fift of August: the day of the bloudy Gowries treason, and of his Highnes blessed preseruation. 3. Amphitheatrum scelerum: or, the transcendent of treason: the day of a most admirable deliuerance of our King ... from that most horrible and hellish proiect of the Gun-Powder Treason Nouemb. 5. Whereunto is annexed a short disswasiue from poperie. By Samuel Garey, preacher of Gods Word at Wynfarthing in Norff.

CHAP. XI.

I VVil in the next place briefly consider the goodly Harmony of the holy Doctors of Rome, in the managing and maintaining of this new Doctrine of deposition of Kings by making their * 1.1 Pope an absolute Lord of all Temporalties, and of the Spiri∣tualties; by vertue of which vaste omnipotency of power, as being the Supreme spirituall, and temporall Prince of all, and ouer all, they ascribe vnto his Holinesse this ple∣nitude of power, to haue the iurisdiction of both swords; and so may passe against Kings (if they bee faulty by tyranny, infidelity, heresie or apostacy; or not Roman Ca∣tholickes) Sentences of Excommunication, Breues of In∣terdiction, Depriuation, Buls of Absolution of Subiects from Alleagiance; yea, giue Licence, and Indulgences of pardon to misereants to * 1.2 murder them: and yet this is not to be counted King-killing, for a King excommuni∣cated, or deposed, is no King in Popery:

Let vs see the consent of these Doctors, or rather heare the confusion of their tongues in building of this Babell.

Some of the cheefe pillars of Popery defend the direct, ordinary, and inherent authority of the Pope; whereby as Lord of the whole VVorld, in all temporall matters hee may at his pleasure depose Emperors, and Princes: The

cheefe of these is Cardinall i 1.3 Baronius, and to alleadge his reasons I omit, his Bookes are common, and extant in the world. And this opinion, that the Pope is Lord of all the Temporalties, and that the supreame Iurisdiction both in temporall and spirituall matters, belong to Peters Succes∣sors, (which was the brainelesse assertion of old blockish Canonists, and exploded of all sober Papists,) is now re∣newed, and passeth for Catholick Doctrine. Your k 1.4 Francis Bozius defends it, that the Pope is directly Lord of things temporall, and is the Ruler and Monarke of the whole world. So Rodericus l 1.5 Sancius, a Bishop of theirs goes fur∣ther; It is to be holden, according to the naturall, morall, and diuine Law, wth the right Faith, that the Lordship of the Roman Bishop is the true, and onely immediate Lord∣ship of all the world, not as concerning spirituall things onely, but also as concerning temporall things; and that the imperiall Lordship of Kings dependeth vpon it, and oweth seruice and attendance thereunto, as a meanes, mi∣nister, and instrument; and that by him it receiueth institu∣tion and ordination, and at the commandement of the pa∣pall Lordship, it may be remoued, reuoked, corrected, and punished: In the gouernement of the world, the secular Lordship is not necessary either of pure, or meere, or expe∣dient necessity; but when the Church cannot. Resoluing this Article therefore, we say; That in all the world there is but one Lordship, and therefore there must be but one Vniuersall and Supreame Prince, and Monarke; who is Christs Vicar, according to that of Daniel, m 1.6 He gaue him dominion, and honour, and kingdome, and all people, and languages shall serue him: In him therefore is the Foun∣taine and originall of all Lordship, and from him the o∣ther Powers flow: so farre goes this Popish Bishop.

And diuers others agree with him; It is iudged that no Christian Monarke hath his Crowne wholly giuen him from Heauen, vnlesse it receiue firmenesse and strength al∣so from Christs Vicar the Pope, so n 1.7 Possevine. Christ com∣mitted to Peter the Key-keeper of eternall life, the right of earthly and heauenly gouernement; and that in his place

the Pope is the vniuersall Iudge, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords; saith o 1.8 another: yea, the holy Writer in the old law made the Priesthood an adiectiue to the King∣dome, but Saint Peter made the Kingdome an adiectiue to the Priesthood, faith the same p 1.9 writer.

Carerius a Doctor of Padua, in his Booke De potestate Romani Pontificis, which he made specially to confute Bel∣larmine, who denied the ordinary and direct power of the Pope in the Temporalties, doth in many places and pages * 1.10 maintaine, that all dominion as well in spirituall things, as in temporall, is fetcht by Christ, and the same is commit∣ted to Saint Peter and his Successors: that Christ was Lord of all these inferior things, not onely as he was God, but also as he was Man, hauing at that time dominion in the * 1.11 Earth: and therefore, as the dominion of the world, both diuine, and humane, was then in Christ, as man; so now it is in the Pope the vicar of Christ.

That Christ is directly the Lord of the world in tem∣porall things, and therefore the Pope Christs vicar, is the * 1.12 like; and this power giuen to Peter, is set out, by the sole comming of Peter to Christ vpon the water, for vniuersall * 1.13 gouernement is signified by the Sea.

As God is the Supreme Monarke of the world, pro∣ductiuely, and gubernatiuely, although of himselfe he be * 1.14 neither of the world, nor temporall: so the Pope, although originally, and from himselfe he haue dominion ouer all things temporall, yet he hath it not by any immediate ex∣ecution, and committeth that to the Emperor by an vni∣uersall iurisdiction.

It would weary a man to reade ouer this worke of Ca∣rerius, wherein he sweates and toyles himselfe, striuing with arguments, and laying a curse vpon his aduersaries, that shal gainsay him, or denie the ordinary & direct pow∣er of the Pope in the temporalties: which he writes, as his * 1.15 Preface speakes, against the Politicians, and heretickes of the Time; and indeed specially against a greater Clerke then himselfe, Bellarmine, both temporizers to flatter Popes with power in temporalties. To omit all the rest of

this ranke, who inclineto this opinion, That the Pope hath a direct, ordinary, and inherent power in Temporalties: let vs on the other side, behold these Madianites, or Cad∣meyes Brethren, warring and wrangling with an opinio∣nate opposition and contradiction.

The principall, and Coriphaeus of all the rest, is the Car∣dinall * 1.16 Bellarmine, who ouerthrowes that ordinary, direct, and inherent gouernement of the Pope in temporalties, as left by Christ, with scripturall arguments very soundly, and sufficiently; yet to gratifie the Pope like a good ser∣uant, he restraines it to limitations, and distinctions: Al∣though (saith he) the Pope be not Lord of all Temporal∣ties directly, neither hath inherent and ordinary authori∣ty as he is Pope, to disthronize temporall Princes, yet he is Lord of the Temporalties indirectly, in order to the Spiri∣tuals (Bellarmines vsuall phrase) and hath an extraordinary and a borrowed authority, as he is cheefe spirituall Prince, to alter Kingdomes, to take them from one, and to giue them to another, if it bee necessary to the saluation of soules, i. in order to the Spiritualties. Wherein obserue how politicke these papall Parasites be, disputing about a power of Popes, in disposing Temporals or Regals, one fort deriuing this power directly, and ordinarily from Christ, and Saint Peter; the other side indirectly, and onely in order to the Spirituals, when as their Pope neuer had any direct, or indirect power in that kind from God, and from Saint Peter.

But marke how the sonnes' of this Kingdome be diui∣ded: The Pope hath either ordinary and direct power to depose Kings, as he is Pope; or he hath no authority at all, faith Carerius: But he hath no direct, and ordinary, as he is Pope, by Bellarmines opinion, Ergo, He hath none at all. Thus their diuision hath made a true conclusion, that their Pope hath neither ordinary, or indirect power in disposi∣tion of Temporals: but least Bellarmine should proue an Hereticke in this point, and be vngratefull to his great Master the Pope, of whom he is graced with the purple hat; hee comes with his qualification, and modification,

That the Pope is Lord of the Temporalties indirectly, in order to the Spirituals; which strange distinction hath no foundation: for Peter could * 1.17 transferre no power but ordi∣nary, and the Pope is no otherwise cheefe spiritual Prince, but as he is Pope; so that if he cannot depose Princes or∣dinarily from their Temporalties as Pope, he cannot de∣pose them extraordinarily, and indirectly as cheefe spiritu∣all Prince: which Carerius enforces, Either (saith he) hee is not the vicar of Christ, or else he deposeth inferior powers as Pope; but he deposeth them not as Pope, saith Bellar∣mine: he is not therefore the vicar of Christ by Carerius conclusion. Thus Bellarmine hath depriued his Pope of the Temporalties, and his opposite Carerius hath not left him Lord of the Spiritualties: The one denies him a depo∣sing Pope, the other inferres vpon it, no Deputy or vicar of Christ; both assertions very true, though they deliuer them by way of altercation. Thus these wrangling spirits haue brought their Popes imaginary power in great ha∣zard to be lost.

The one making their Pope * 1.18 Sathans Asse, loading him with a boundlesse burthen of power, too heauy for a∣ny to beare, to haue the direct dominion of all the Tem∣poralties in the world absolutely, and ordinarily: Onus Aetna granius, A burthen heauier then the weight of the Mountain Aetna. Iethro said, that Moses his task was too heauy for him; and Iob, Curuantur qui portant orbem, They that support the world, are crooked: yet these Ingrossers of greatnesse, would lay vpon their Popes shoulders the vnsupportable weight of the dominion of the world, to be Lord of all the Temporalties directly, and ordinarily.

The other giues him not so much weight of authority, yet giues him too much; To depose Kings if need require, taking a middle course, denying the infinite power of In∣herent and ordinary gouernement; yet reseruing an indi∣rect and borrowed authority belonging to the Pope, yet not as Pope, but as the cheefe spirituall Prince, conditio∣nally, if Kings become tyrannicall, hereticall, or apostati∣call, then the Pope is to coniure them into the circle of

religion, by counsell and admonition; and after if they proue refractary, to confine them out of their dominionby depriuation and deposition: and all this is pretended to be done by power of a spirituall right indirectly to the tem∣poralties, yet to a spirituall end, and in order to the spiri∣tualties.

The first to all mens eyes appeare most grosse and egre∣gious parasites, besotted with palpable folly and flattery: but Bellarmine more smooth and cunning, long acquain∣ted with dissimulation, (the very Genius of Romes Court-Cardinals) bedawbes his workes with oyly morter, with holy hony, (if it bee for the saluation of soules, in order * 1.19 to the spirituals, tending to * 1.20 spirituall good,) then

Si meruere (Pater) tunc dira tonitruamitte, Percutient summos reges, nec fulmina cessent.

If they deserue, let Papall thunder cleaue These Regall Cedars, and of Crownes bereaue.

These are Boanerges, sonnes of thunder, yet would seeme Barnabasses, sonnes of comfort, tempering and qualifying their fiery thunderbolts of depriuation with a pretence of spirituall good, tending to soules saluation. * 1.21

But there is a third sort of Papists on the other side, men of more humble mindes, disliking this statizing Ie∣suitisme, and papall intrusion into Caesars chaire, confes∣sing that the Pope hath no temporall power ouer Kings directly: as Gul. Barclayus de authoritate Papae, against whose opinion herein Bellarmine writes a Treatise, De po∣testate summi pontificis contra Gul. Barclayum: b 1.22 Watson in his Quodlibeticall Booke, Sheldon in his generall rea∣sons, Roger Widdringtons humble supplication to Paul the fift Pope, which worke a late c 1.23 Decree of Romes Car∣dinalls prohibited, repining to see Popes temporall in∣croachments by Romanists contradicted, good reason therefore to clap their hand vpon his mouth, and to com∣mit him to the dungeon of suppression: Stephen Gardiners booke, Bishop of VVinchester, De vera obedientia, with a preface of Bishop Bonners adioyned to it, De summo &

absoluto Regis imperio, published by M. Bekinsaw, Devera differentia regiae potestatis, & Ecclesiae: Bishop Tonstals Sermon, Bishop Longlands Sermon, Tonstals letter to Car∣dinall Poole, and many others in Latine and English in this kinde of Romane Catholickes, all ouerthrowing this point of moderne Popery.

Thus as many Papists openly deny; and I presume ma∣ny * 1.24 of the other doe inwardly beleeue, (being acquainted with their equiuocations, and mentall reseruations) so it may make all men maruell, who are not prepossessed with preiudicate opinions, or preposterous affections, vpon what sufficient, yea probable inducements, and motiues they might build this Pontifician power, eyther of spiri∣tuall, much lesse of temporall authority ouer Kings, ey∣ther directly or indirectly, by way of deposition of Kings, or disposition of their kingdomes.

The Basis or pillar of this power, yea pride, they fetch from a primacy (as they say) of Peter, which is diuolued to the See of Rome by right of succession: in both of which points they haue beene lamentably soyled, and it were fol∣ly in me to rub ouer the incureable wounds they haue re∣ceiued in this conflict.

I will stand but as a spectator or relator of this skir∣mish: first in Peters primacy. First, wee request them to choose out a place for the foundation of it. And the Car∣dinall d 1.25 Contarenus answereth, That in his iudgement it was chiefly giuen in the 16. of Mathew, when the keyes were giuen him.

But his Brother e 1.26 Bellarmine, & the f 1.27 Rhemists deny this, and say, The koyes were not then giuen, but onely promi∣sed, and with the keyes the supremacy; the Gift was in the 21. of Iohn, where Christ said, Feede my sheepe. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Con∣tra•…•… replies againe, Let not the subtilty of some more ye that say thus, for they speake more subtilly then truely: thus in the very ••ore from they begin to stagger, and vary among themselues.

But because the place of Math. 16. commonly allead∣ged to prooue Peters supremacy, is their most euident

h 1.28 place, there we insist, and obiect, that heerein Peter had no more giuen him then the other Apostles, and all made equall with him: for Peter had no more but to be the rocke, and to receiue the keyes; but this is common to the other, ergo, &c. For all the power of the rocke and keyes is included in binding and loosing, retaining and remit∣ting sinnes, as i 1.29 themselues teach: but this power was gi∣uen to all the Apostles, Math. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 21. There∣fore all the power of the Rocke and Keyes common to the other. To reconcile this point and dissolue this knot, they skirmish among themselues: k 1.30 Some denying, that the keyes containe more then binding and loosing: Others, that Christ in the 18. of Matthew, gaue not the Apostles the whole power of the keyes, making a threefold sort of keyes, of Primacie, of Order, of Iurisdiction: But l 1.31 Bellar∣mine condemnes that, saying; It was neuer heard that there were more keyes in the Church then two, of Order, and of Iurisdiction: by which assertion, in giuing the other Apo∣stles the same keyes of Order and Iurisdiction, hee con∣firmes our conclusion.

The highest authority that can be assigned, is contained in the keyes say m 1.32 they, and the keyes were giuen the other Apostles, Math. 18. Iohn 20. 23. as well as Peter; there∣fore Peter hath no supremacy by the Text, or by their ex∣positions.

The common answer of them is, That albeit the Apo∣stles had the same keyes and power that Peter had, yet with a difference, that Peter had it before them, and as their Ordinary, but they after him, as his Legates and sub∣iects: which is vntrue; for in the 20. of Iohn, 21. they all had their power and commission from Christs own mouth, not from Peter: And n 1.33 Christ said to all, Goe ye and preach the Gospell to euery creature; so that seeing they had all their Commission immediatly from Christs mouth, it doth imply a contradiction to say, they had it vnder and from Peter: herein they implicate themselues in diuers turnings: some o 1.34 say, they receiued all their authority from Christ immediately, but this was because it pleased Christ by spe∣ciall

priuiledge to exempt them: wherein marke how they contradict themselues: first saying, they had their autho∣rity from and vnder Peter, and presently, they should haue * 1.35 had it, but that by speciall grace they were exempted.

2 Sort say, the Apostles had two offices: first, of Apo∣stleship: secondly, of Bishoply dignity: the former they had from Christ; but the latter by & through Peter: p 1.36 Victoria, saying. They receiued all the power they had immediately from Christ, in that he made them all Apostles, for to the Apo∣stleship belong three things: first, authority to gouerne the beleeuers: secondly, faculty of teaching: thirdly, pow∣er of miracles: inferring that all the Apostles had the au∣thority of Order & Iurisdiction immediately from Christ. And r 1.37 Henriquez saith, There is no likelihood in their o∣pinion, that say the Apostles receiued their Iurisdiction of Peter: s 1.38 other determine the doubt thus, That the diffe∣rence of Peters power from the rest was, that hee alone might vse the keyes, but the rest might not without him: and t 1.39 Saunders saith, The other Disciples had the same keyes, but after Peter, to teach them that Peter had them by ordinary right as Prince of all, but they by Christs spe∣ciall delegation extraordinarily. u 1.40 Gregory of Valence o∣therwise, that Peter had the keyes from Christ, and ouer all the Church for euer to continue in his successors, which the other Apostles had not. * 1.41 Ʋictoria decides this power into foure parts. 1. That Peters power was ordinary, the rest extraordinary. 2. That it was to continue in the Church, the others not. 3. His power was cuer them, theirs neyther ouer him, nor ouer one another. 4. Their power was subordinate to his, so that hee might ouer rule it. x 1.42 Cai••tan cuts it into fiue points: 1. In the manner, Pe∣ter receiued the power ordinarily, they of speciall grace. 2. In the office, Peter Christs Vicar, they but delegates. 3. In the obiect, hauing power ouer all, they not ouer one another. 4. In continuance, Peters perpetuall; theirs de∣termined with their life. 5. In the essence, Peters precep∣tiue to command, theirs executiue to doe what hee com∣manded

y 1.43 Senensis deuides it into three parts: 1. of Or∣der. 2. of Apostleship. 3. of Monarchy.

What a weake and doubtfull foundation is heere to build vp Peters Primacy, which they make an Article of their Faith, so inuolued with nice distinctions, and per∣plexed with difficulties, and mutuall contradictions?

But perchance some Papist may reply and say, the chiefe place to proue Peters primacy, is Iohn 20. 16. where Christ * 1.44 said thrice to Peter, Feede my Sheepe; why doth hee exa∣mine Peter of his loue more then the rest, but that hee in∣tended him more authority? No such matter: Peter had thrice denied Christ, which none of the other had done; and therefore he had a threefold confirmation, and made a threefold confession for his former abnegation. Oh but some of them haue againe argued, Feeding is ruling with fulnesse of power, but the other Apostles were part of Christs sheepe, therefore he must feede them. Ans•• Fee∣ding is to edifie by the word and example, so Peter z 1.45 fedde the Apostles, and the * 1.46 Apostles fedde Peter, as Paul fedde him at Antioch by reproofe. So all Christs Ministers are commanded to feed the slock of Christ (which is as large as feed my sheepe) but the Pope doth not thus feede the sheepe, but rather * 1.47 feede vpon the sheepe: Non pascit o∣ues, sed pastus ouibus: in this point, Peter and the Pope are no more alike, then an Englishman is to a blackeamoore: they agree better in fishing then in feeding: * 1.48 Peter with his Angle caught a fish that had mony in the mouth; so the Pope fishes more for money then for men, and cannot a∣bide to be like Peter, or to succeed Peter, when hee a 1.49 saith, * 1.50 Siluer and gold haue I none:

Platos Common wealth, Tullies Orator, Moores Ʋto∣pia, and Peters supremacy are alike. The gouernement of Christs Church is rather Aristocraticall, with many vnder one Christ, then Monarchicall vnder one visible Head: no Primacy of power, or Iurisdiction among the Apostles; if of order? Petrus primus, non primas; for there was a pari∣ty of power among the Apostles: yea as their * 1.51 Leo, Ele∣ctio pares, labor similes, finis facit aquales, Their election

makes them alike, the labour alike, the end equall; or * 1.52 as Cyprian, Pari consertie praediti, & honotis & potestatis: Like fellow ship, honor, and power. But let vs suppose; (for impossibilities may bee supposed) that Peter had a supremancy ouer the Apostles, or more, that Peter was Pope of Rome, how comes this speciall priuiledge to the Pope? They will answer, by way of succession. To which we re∣ply, that true succession standeth in holding the same true faith; but the Pope departs from Peters doctrine, b 1.53 Submit your selues vnto all manner of ordinance for the Lords sake, whether it be vnto the King as vnto the Superiour &c. Not onely Precept, but President of Peter is disliked in paying tribute for Christ and himselfe: But what if Peter * 1.54 was chiefe of the Apostles, must hee therefore be aboue Kings? and must his imagined successor be aboue Em∣perors?

But let vs fee how the Papists proue Papall succession of Peter in this imagined supremacy: Canus doth c 1.55 con∣fesse, That it is not written in the Scriptures, that the Pope succedeth Peter in the supremacy: and d 1.56 Bellarmine ac∣knowledges it in these words, Licet Romanos Episcopos Pe∣tro succedere in sacris lobris non habeatur, &c. Although it be not written in the holy Scripture that the Romane Bi∣shops succeed Peter, yet wee haue it by Tradition from Peter.

The Rhemists and many other would yet prooue it by Scripture, when as their chiefe Champion confesses it to * 1.57 be an vnwritten tradition.

But f 1.58 Caietane proues it another way: The Pope succee∣deth Peter in as much as he is Bishop of Rome, and there Peter made his feate, and died at Rome. To proue this; they alledge a sew humane stories subiect to error, as themselues are: and I thinke it being a matter of so great moment as they make it, that all are damned vnlesse they obey their Pope as Saint Peters successor, and by vertue of this succession beleeue his authority in matters concer∣ning soule and conscience, this life present and the future; it had need to be proued by pregnant places out of Scrip∣ture,

* 1.59 and not by any fallible or doubtfull history.

But I would faine be resolued of this point by a schoole Papist, If the Pope succeeded Peter immediately after Pe∣ters death, who it was that succeeded him? whether Linus or Cletus, or Anacletus, or Clemens? it shall be in their choise to name the man.

Clemens Romanus an old new Father, whom some say, was the Popes owne childe, writes in his g 1.60 Apostolicall Constitutions, That Linus was the first Bishop of Rome made by S. Paul, and that Clemens after the death of Linus was the second ordained by Peter; If this relation be true, the Pope sits not in the chaire of Peter, but in the seate of Paul, who appointed the first Pope.

h 1.61 Franciscus Turrianus in his Apologeticall annotati∣ons vpon the text of Clemens answereth, that Linus was not Bishop of Rome, but Suffragan, or vicar generall, ex∣ecuting it in S. Peters non-residencye: So i 1.62 Marianus S••o∣tus in the life of Peter saith of Cletus: contradicting the Romane Martyrology, which makes Linus and Cletus both absolute Bishops of Rome; and Baromius in his Annotati∣ons vpon their Martyrdomes and Ecclesiasticall k 1.63 Annals, reckons thus, Linus the first, Cletus the second, & Clemens the l 1.64 bird Bishop of Rome after S. Peter: the same{us} Baronius thinkes Cletus and Anacletus were all one: but m 1.65 Bellar∣mine doth gainesay him: others hold that Clemens was the fourth Pope after S^t. Peter: some write hee was first, some second, some third, some the fourth; make the mu∣sicke in this mystery. But n 1.66 Bellarmine labours to reduce these iarring fractions to a better harmony: Indeed (saith he) Clemens by right was the first Pope, but he suffered out of his humility Linus and Cletus to execute his office so long as they liued: yet o 1.67 Damasus, and Sophronius, and Si••eon Metaph••••stes affirme, that Linus died before Peter: heere the Cardinall contemnes these writers, which p 1.68 else∣where hee commends for learned and Catholike Authors. In a worde, let it be granted that Clemens suffered these his competitors to liue, yet if three Popes were aliue at once, who was the true successor of Peter, whether Lord

Cletus, Lord Linus, or Lord Clemens? I would faine be re∣solued of this question by them who so eagerly maintaine the Pope to haue from S. Peter his succession: surely they cannot assoile this demand, who so vary among them∣selues, and so stammer in their owne talke, vncertain who was the first, second, third, or fourth Pope of Rome: that the Lord q 1.69 hath done to them which hee threatned to the Egyptians; I will set the Egyptians against the Egypti∣ans, so euery one shall fight against his brother, and euery one against his neighbour, city against city, and kingdom against kingdome, one against another, and God and the truth against them all.

Thus I haue a little diuerted into this point of Peters pretended supremacy, and the imagined succession of Popes after him, whereupon this vsurped power ouer all, the Pope principally challenges. I know this matter hath bin largely handled by the choice Diuines of our Church, and the Papists haue beene put to desperate and wofull shifts: I did not purpose to be large in it, onely but to touch it, because our Lay-Papists haue a great fancy to it, and doe beloeue any thing, because they know little or nothing; and according to r 1.70 Nazianzene, the rude vulgar wonder at that they doe not vnderstand, and thinke their learned Guides prooue this very authentically, when as there is no point more weakely proued, and wherein they themselues are more distracted. And but that their po∣pish tutors presume vpon their simplicity and ignorance, they would be ashamed to argue thus to proue it: as first, Christ said, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church, Ergo the Church is built vpon Peter and the Pope: or againe, The gates of Hell shall not preuaile a∣gainst the Church, Ergo, Peter and the Pope are the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile; or, I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith faile not; Ergo, the Pope cannot erre: or, Feede my sheepe; Ergo, Peter was the supreame head of the Apostles.

What a silly and simple kinde of arguing is this, voide of Diuinity and Logick, which the learned hisse at? which

yet goes for currant arguments among ignorant Papists, who in the Infancy of their knowledge haue no skill and iudgement to discerne these things; yet are so ouercarried, yea, infatuated with a doting fancy to beleeue any thing, which is cloaked with a pretence of Catholike Truth, or Doctrine of the Church of Rome; that with great applause they will accept of these, or the like, vnlearned follies: be∣ing like vnto that Frenchman in Geneua, of whom s 1.71 Zan∣chius speakes, that he protested, If Saint Paul and Caluin should preach at the same houre, that he would leaue Paul and goe to Caluin. So these will euen deny Scripture, to beleeue, and cleaue to their Doctors; and they know how to seduce them well enough, making them firmely be∣leeue, that Peter was the Primate, and Prince of all the A∣postles, and that the Pope succeeds him in all his prero∣gatiues, and sits in Peters Chaire. So that we may say with t 1.72 Simeones; Who when he saw Arsacius an vnlearned and vnworthy man, placed in Chrysostomes roome, cried out in these words, Prohpudor? quis, cui? Oh shame; who, and whom? So wee may censure the Popes sitting in Peters Chaire, Oh shame, who, and whom? Peter was carefull to teach & preach; but for the Popes, many of them cannot, and all will not, preach the Gospell. Their Bennet that was Pope, when he was not ten yeeres old, and Iohn not aboue sixteene, as their deare u 1.73 Baronius sayes; oh then how wor∣thily was Peters place supplied, how able they were to feed the vniuersall flocke, and to be the Supreame Heads of the Christian World?

And many of their Popes haue beene condemned, and conuicted hereticks by themselues, as * Marcellinus for ido∣latry, worshipping Pagan Gods, x 1.74 Liberius for Arrianisme.

Honorius the first, was a Monothelite hereticke con∣demned for it in three generall Councels: Gregory y 1.75 the 12, and Bennet the 13, deposed for notorious heretickes, and schismatickes, and many others; oh then how was Peters Chayre adorned, his place supplied, the vniuersall flocke gouerned, the Supremacy managed, the Church edified? Pro••pudor? quis, cui? How is Peters Chayre disparaged by a pretence of such vile Successors: yea, how opposite is the

Pope to Peter, or if you wil, this Sir Peter, or Pope-Peter to * 1.76 Saint Peter? light and darkenesse are not more dislike. Preaching Peter commanded all, z 1.77 Feare God, Honor the King, Submit your selues &c. Not onely to the good and * 1.78 curteous; but to the froward; for this is thanke worthy, if a man for conscience sake toward God endure greefe, suf∣fering wrongfully: But princely Pope-peter vnlooses men at his pleasure from their alleagiance and obedience to * 1.79 good, and gracious Princes (if they will not bow their Scepters to his Miter,) and will depriue them of their Crownes, and if he can, of their liues too, being blasted by excommunication; then proceed to deposition, and to make it take better effect, hee will authorize murder and rebellion: yet all this, vnder a faire vizard of spirituall good, and for the saluation of soules: but

Quic quid id est, timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes.

Beware of these same Pope-pilles, sugred ouer, yet full of deadly poyson. Peter his precepts and patterne compa∣red * 1.80 with the Popes practise, argue a plaine separation or secession, no succession.

Peter commanded and performed obedience to Princes, excommunicated none, deposed none, depriued none, freed no Subiects from alleagiance, or excited them to a∣ny resistance, but suffred (if we may credit their a 1.81 Register, to proue his being at Rome) as a Martyr: yet these Princes were no Catholickes, yea Heathens. Was it because hee wanted power, (as some haue dreamed?) why, he had the power of Miracles, hee could doe that which neuer any Pope did, or shall doe; Surge, & ambula: Acts 3. 6: Arise, and walke; which had power to heale a creeple from his Mothers wombe. b 1.82 He raised the dead to life, yea, sont the liuing c 1.83 to death, could with his d 1.84 shadow heale the ••icke: Wanted he power? no, rather he wanted this pride and im∣piety, wherewith the Pope swels and abounds: he knew, that his Kingdome promised by e 1.85 Christ, was not of this World; here the Kings of the Gentiles should reigne ouer him, and his fellow Disciples: but hereafter in the heauen∣ly Kingdome, they f 1.86 should sit vpon seates, and iudge the twelue Tribes of Israel.

But this Pope-Peter, or prince-like Pope, fearing his Kingdome is not of that world, would faine erect vp his Monarchy in this world, and would sit vpon his seate or chayre, to iudge all the Tribes of the world; and would faine be a Iudge ouer the Tribe of Iudah, to make Kings be subiect to his Ferula, and Rod of correction; and so then surfet them with his cup of corruption: and if they will not submit themselues to his domination, hee will by censure, and sentence of excommunication seeke to dethrone them and depose them, free their subiects from the yoake of o∣bedience and oath of alleagiance to them, and arme and animate them to take vp armes against them; and all this pestilent power he would deriue from Peters Chaire, ma∣king it a Chaire of pestilence, to arrogate such a pernici∣ous supremacy, by which meanes hee hath beene the pri∣mus * 1.87 motor, the cheefe agent of all the mischeefes, murders, and massacres, treasons, and rebellions, in these latter times. So that I may conclude, that papall excommunica∣tion of Kings, and Doctrine of deposition of them, haue beene the cheefe nurseries of most treasons and rebellions. And this hath moued me to take a little suruey of it, di∣uerting out of the intended Roade of my discourse; for which former prolixity, I will requite my Reader with fol∣lowing breuity.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Quem penes ar∣bitrium, & ius & norma regendi.
• * 1.2

  Such Kings may bee killed when it please the Pope. Baron. Ann. 1089. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 11.
• i 1.3

  Baron. Annal. Tom. 1. An. 57. pa. 423 & 433.
• k 1.4

  De temp. Eccl. Monarch. li. 1. 1. 3. fol 98.
• l 1.5

  Episc. Zamo: al∣leadged by Care∣rius. De potest. Ro. pontif. pag. 131.
• m 1.6

  Dan. 7. 14. Which place is proper onely to Christ, the Bi∣shop expounds of the Pope.
• n 1.7

  Posseuir. bib••. o∣thec. select 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 17.
• o 1.8

  Isid. Mos. de Maiest. milit. Eccl. pag. 27.
• p 1.9

  Isid. Mos. pag. 22. de Maiest. milit. Eccl.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 9.
• * 1.11

  Pag. 111.
• * 1.12

  Pag. 112.
• * 1.13

  Pag. 151.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 145.
• * 1.15

  Vide Saund. visib. Monarch, & de claue Dauid. Melina. tract. 2. de Institut. Becanus, &c.
• * 1.16

  De rom. pontif. lib. 5. c. 6. Non potest papa, vt papa, ordi∣nariè temporales Principes depone∣re, etiam iusta de causa, tanquam Iu∣dex ordinarius, nec ordinariè iudicare de temporalibus.
• * 1.17

  Extraordinaria potestas non transit i•• Successorem.
• * 1.18

  Am not I thine Asse, which thou hast ridden vpon since thy first time vnto this day? Numb. 22. 30. Exod. 18. 18. •…•…anto oneri ceruix 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sufficit vlla. •…•…apa sed non vt •…•…pa, habet aliquo •…•…odo, sed modo in∣directo, potestatem quandam, tempo∣••alem, sed non me∣••è, nec absolutam, •…•…d ad aliquid rela∣•…•…, nec perpetu∣•…•…, sed casualem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eliens. Bishop most excellently 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his answere to ••••tus, pag. 27.
• * 1.19

  De pont. lib. 5. c. 6.
• * 1.20

  In ordine quidē ad bonum spiritu∣ale &c.
• * 1.21

  Vide Ioh. Maior. Doctor. parisi. dist. 24. quaest. idem, Comment. in l. 4. sent. dist. 24. fol. 214.
• b 1.22

  8. Arti. 7. 8.
• c 1.23

  Condemned in that Decree which was chiefly intended against the Archb of Spalato. The Vniuersity of Paris, and the Sorbone Schoole acknowledge the Popes nullity of power in tempo∣rall authority o∣uer Kings.
• * 1.24

  Vide Tract. in∣script. le Franc. di∣scours. An. 1000. The nullity of Papall power in the Temporal∣ties and Regali∣ties of Kings will fully appeare in the 6. Volume of the Archb. of Spalatos Book, de rep. ecclesiastica. Marsilius and Oc∣cbam did write a∣gainst this Popes pretneded supre∣macy.
• d 1.25

  De sacram. Chr. leg. l. 3. p. 103.
• e 1.26

  D. Pontific. lib. 1. c. 12.
• f 1.27

  Rhem. Annotat. Job. 21. 17. Jansen. Concord. c. 14••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vbi supra. p. 104.
• h 1.28

  Locus valde illu∣stris, vbi Christus cam authoritatem verbis amplissimis D. Petro promisit. Greg. Valent. tom. 3. pag 185.
• i 1.29

  Bell. de rom. pon∣tif. li. 1. c. 12. §. verum haec. Ian∣sen. harm. c. 66.
• k 1.30

  Caiet. Tract. de instit. pontif. c. 5. Sad primum. Greg. de Valent. tom. 3. p 109.
• l 1.31

  Vbi supra.
• m 1.32

  Per claues supre∣mam potestatē gu∣bernandi ecclesiam Christi, &c. Iansen. concor. cap. 66. E∣man. Sa. Annot. Math. 16. 19. Rhem. annot. Mat. 16. 19. If that were true, the Apostles should haue boūd and loosed in Pe∣ters name.
• n 1.33

  Mark. 16. 15.
• o 1.34

  Caiet. de autho. pap. & concil. c 3.
• * 1.35

  Oportet mendaces esse memores.
• p 1.36

  Staplet. Prin. doctr. lib. 6. c. 7. p. 215. Dom Iacobat. de concil. lib. 10. art. 7.
• r 1.37

  Sum. mora: p. 403 Dom. Ban. in 22. Tho. p 234.
• s 1.38

  Bosius de sign. eccl. lib. 18. c. 1.
• t 1.39

  Visib. Monar. lib. 6. c 2. pag 153.
• u 1.40

  Tom. 3. p. 191.
• * 1.41

  Relect. 2. de po∣test. eccl. nu. 11. pag. 87.
• x 1.42

  De autho. pap. & concil. c. 3.
• y 1.43

  Bibl sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 269.
• * 1.44

  Cum Petro dicitur, ad omnes dicitut, amas me? passe o∣ues meas. Aug. de agon. Christi. c. 30.
• z 1.45

  Gal. 2. 11.
• * 1.46

  Deus doeuit Pe∣trum per posterio∣rem Paulum. Aug. cp. 28.
• * 1.47

  Baron. tels Pope Paul that there is a two fold mini∣stery in Peter, Feed my sheepe, and kill and eat.
• * 1.48

  Math. ••7. 27.
• a 1.49

  Acts 3. 6.
• * 1.50

  Paulus honore par Petro, ne di c•• am∣plius. Chrysost. in epist. ad Galath, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prior, non superior. Si Petrus primus, Paulus praecipuus. Euseb. emissen. hom de natiu. Petr. & Pauli.
• * 1.51

  Ser. 2. in, natiu. Petr. & Pauli.
• * 1.52

  Cyprian de vni∣tate Ecclesiae.
• b 1.53

  1 Pet. 2. 13.
• * 1.54

  Math. 17. 27.
• c 1.55

  Locor. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 8.
• d 1.56

  Controu. 4. q 5. de pontif. finitae An. 1578.
• * 1.57

  Staplet. in 16. of Math. 18.
• f 1.58

  De Diuin. insti∣tut. pontif. c. 13.
• * 1.59

  De successione pō∣tificum nihil fere iure diuino cautū inuenitur. Simanc. institit. 45. n. 18.
• g 1.60

  Lib. 7. cap. 47.
• h 1.61

  Antuerp. Anno. 1578.
• i 1.62

  Ex epist decret. Leo. 2.
• k 1.63

  Tom. 1.
• l 1.64

  Ibidem.
• m 1.65

  De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. c. 5.
• n 1.66

  De Pontif. Rom. lib. 2▪ cap. 5. §. cae∣terum Petr. mortuo▪ & sequenti.
• o 1.67

  Bel. ibidem. §. ne∣{que} multū me mouet.
• p 1.68

  In Catalog. The∣olog. annex. Tom. 24 controu.
• q 1.69

  Esay 19. 2.
• r 1.70

  Hieren. ad Ne∣pot.
• s 1.71

  Epist. ante Mis∣cellan.
• t 1.72

  Nicephorus. lib. 13. cap. 28.
• u 1.73

  Ann. 1033. Nu. 6 Bar. 955. Nu 1. 2. Their Archbi∣shop of Rhemes at fiue yeeres old. Bar. An. 925. Nu. 9 Vide Speculum Romanorum ponti∣ficum: per Stepha∣num Szegedinum. Pag. 91. to 111. Carranz. in Mar∣cellin.
• x 1.74

  Athan. Ep. ad so∣lita. Fascicu. Tem. An. 353.
• y 1.75

  Theod. Niemens. de scism. lib. 3. cap. 44. p. 91. Scriptum de Boni∣facio octauo, intra∣uit vt vulpes, reg∣nauit vt Leo, mor∣tuus est vt canis. Successio in Petri culpa, non Cathe∣dra.
• * 1.76

  Non vnus pilus Pe∣tri est in pontifice.
• z 1.77

  1 Pet. 2.
• * 1.78

  17 18 19
• * 1.79

  Adrianus dixit. Ro. pontifices succede∣de Romulo in par∣ricidijs, non Petro in pascendis oui∣bus. Antonin. tit. 17. 6. 9.
• * 1.80

  Petrus aliter iussit; aliter gessit.
• a 1.81

  Linus de passione Petri, & Pauli, in biblio. ss. Patr. tom. 2.
• b 1.82

  Acts 9. 40.
• c 1.83

  Acts 5. 5.
• d 1.84

  15.
• e 1.85

  Luc. 22. 29.
• f 1.86

  30.
• * 1.87

  Hic motor scele∣rum primus, frau∣dum{que} cheragus.