SECT. I.

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 Page  152 death 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 Succes∣sour 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 preach∣eth the Gospel, nor founds any Churches thereby, nor doth think it his busi∣ness, 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 onely 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 ge∣neral 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.

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 Pa∣stour of the whole Flock: therefore St. Peter next after Christ had a pre∣heminence 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.

Page  153 Answ. THe Headship and pastoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onely 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, un∣less 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 prehe∣minence over the whole Church] or else thus, [The Foundation hath a prehemi∣nence 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 Page  154 the 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 excom∣municate 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 excom∣municate, 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 Founda∣tion and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary, to have had a power to rule, ex∣communicate 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 there∣fore 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 con∣cession 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 Page  155 were 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 Succes∣sour 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 Bi∣shop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious. All which I have distinct∣ly 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 befal∣len 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 Rea∣sons.

But let us view what is said here. The Major is proved, because the Founda∣tion 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 autho∣rity, and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Com∣mon-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 Corner∣stone. Page  156 Nor 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 lay∣ing 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 Foundati∣ons, 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 de∣nied. 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.

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 onely, 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 be∣ing 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 commemora∣tion Page  157 of his Name [Thou art Peter] and the allusion to that Name in the choice of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Founda∣tion 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 Pe∣ter. 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 Do∣minion, 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 com∣pound 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 mu∣tual, 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 some∣times 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, there∣fore so also must be understood Matth. 16. 18.

2. It is further proved from 1 Cor. 3. 10. where the Apostle tells the Corin∣thians, 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 Page  158 that was, to wit, in that he was a Minister by whom with Apollos the Corinthi∣ans 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 Coun∣cil of Trent it self, Sess. 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation, a∣gainst 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 sup∣porting Page  159 the 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 ac∣knowledge 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 Hea∣ven, 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 Coun∣cil 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.

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.)

Page  160 Answ. THe Argument seems to be this, He to whom, as a Reward of his spe∣cial 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 onely 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not to rule, but onely to provide pasture, or to eate, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 su∣preme 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 indefi∣nite, [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) Page  161 the 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 onely 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 oc∣casion 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 with∣out 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 term∣ed 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 Su∣premacy.

SECT. V.

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 Go∣vernment 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 ru∣ling Councils as President, and ratifying their D•crees; of ordering and con∣firming Bishops and Pastours; of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth, of reconciling any that are excommunicate, of excom∣municating, 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 Col∣lege, 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 oppres∣ons. 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 Page  163 Woman, 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 re∣spect of holy life, than many Popes, I will not onely 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 onely 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, Page  164 s•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 ac∣knowledgement 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.

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, Alexan∣dria, 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 am∣bitious 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 Pa∣triarch, equal to the Bishop of Rome, and for a time contended for prehemi∣nence 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 Scri∣pture, that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles, sith they were one∣ly 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 suc∣ceed 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 Bi∣shops Page  165 of 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.

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 Diony∣sius 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 Dio∣nysius: yet were it granted, that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so writ∣ten, as he saith he did, terming Peter, the supreme and most ancient top of Di∣vines, 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 supre∣macy of power, but of knowledge, and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology, to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of juris∣diction 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 onely 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 with∣out Page  166 that 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 Ro∣man 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 Bi∣shop 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 onely, by reason of which tradition, though ei∣ther 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 Poly∣carpus 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 Ire∣naus 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 Prin∣cipality, 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 clear∣ing 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 de∣termine. 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, Page  167 nor 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 onely 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 remain∣ed 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 Supre∣macy 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 onely, 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 Ro∣man 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 am∣bition and pride, when he sought to impose his Judgement on others, con∣trary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asia∣ticks held, and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome. And therefore it is cer∣tain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now as∣serted.

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, Page  168 but 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Head.

The words in Augustin Serm. 124. de tempore (not as H. T. 12. de 4. tempo∣ribus, 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 deny∣ing 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 Pri∣macy of his Apostleship bore the person, &c. tract. ultimo in Joannem, being re∣cited 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 Hea∣vens, 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 tempta∣tions, 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 Page  169 confessed will I build my Church. For Christ was the Rock upon which Founda∣tion 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 found∣ed 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 pro∣priety in Christ, that is, by signification, Peter in the Rock: by which significa∣tion 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 onely 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 al∣leged, 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 cir∣cuit 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.

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 Christi∣ans. Nor is your Consequence less to be denied, speaking of spiritual things, and things belonging to Church-government, in which we onely 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 tem∣poral things, which this Authour after Hart, and sundry others, seem not to allow the Pope, though Carerius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and others defend it, 〈2 pages missing〉 Page  172 places it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 accord∣ing 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as importing a forbidding onely to lord it over Inferiours, is not right, it being in Luke 22. 25. onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they have rule over them. And that where it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it doth not forbid onely tyrannical dominion, but also any dominion at all over one another is apparent from ma∣ny 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 bu∣siness: but they sought not tyrannical dominion, but the higher seat and chief dignity and power, or as Christ's answer, Luke 22. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intimates, they strove for seniority or priority of order, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vers. 24. and Matth. 20. 27. Mark 10. 44. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shews, that the thing they sought was not Su∣premacy, but onely priority; therefore our Lord Christ forbids not onely ty∣rannical dominion, but the higher seat, chief dignity and power, and the af∣fecting 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that have authority, Luke 22. 25. in Matth. 20. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Princes, or Rulers, or Leaders of the Gentiles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the great ones, in Mark 10 42. yet more diminutively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that seem or are accounted to rule or lead the Nations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 onely tyrannical, and meer lording it over one another after their own will. 3. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to use domi∣nion at all, and to have power at all over one another is forbidden, Luke 22. 25. as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have absolute, lordly, arbitrary, forcible dominion. 4. This is further confirmed in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as well forbidden as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have authority or power, as well as to have dominion, and that which is expressed by the compound in Matthew and Mark is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the simple, in Luke, which is used still of rule without abuse. 5. In Luke it is forbidden to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a word that signifies Benefactours, and though to be Benefactours is not forbidden, yet it is forbidden to be so cal∣led, that is, to affect that Title, which implies one to be under another, and to Page  173 be beholden one to another, as persons that could gratifie one another in be∣stowing favours, granting petitions one to another, bestowing preferments or re∣fuse, 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 onely in service. 8. He expresseth that which he would have them to be so emphatically, that he not onely 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, prece∣dency, 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 con∣firmed 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 im∣pudent 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 onely would be King, and they all equals, sit∣ting 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 Page  174 plain 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 supe∣riority 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 plain∣ly forbidden.

And for what Bellarmine urgeth from the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if Christ had appointed one Ruler or Prince in the College of the Apostles, though the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Leader, is not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 onely forbid spiritual Superi∣ours to lord it over Inferiours, this very grant would prove the Papal Suprema∣cy, 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 im∣mense power, yea, if they be not his Butchers to kill their best and most peace∣able Subjects, if he once term them Hereticks, to interdict a whole State for limiting by Law Donations to Ecclesiasticks, and imprisoning notorious ma∣lefactours, 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 Page  175 Prince, 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 favour∣ably 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 founda∣tion 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 ex∣cluding a subordinate. But sith the term [Foundation] as hath been proved be∣fore 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 sacri∣ficing 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 Scri∣pture expresly saith, Marriage is honourable in all men, Heb. 13. 4.

2. In enjoyning under pain of Heresie, Excommunication, and Damna∣tion things to be believed, and practised, which Christ never enjoyned to be believed or practised, as namely, Transubstantiation, the unbloody Propitia∣tory 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 co∣ordinate, 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 Suc∣cessour, 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. Page  176 to 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 belie∣vers 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 onely on them, but also on the Foundation of the Prophets, Christ alone being the chief corner-stone.

SECT. IX.

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 occa∣sion 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 ve∣rily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was, endued with equal al∣lotment 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 onely 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 Page  177 fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae for∣titudo solidetur: tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur; ut capite con∣stituto 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 consti∣tuted the occasion of Schism might be taken away. In which words it is ma∣nifest 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 re∣spect 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. Whereso∣ever 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 nei∣ther 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 onely, 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 Pa∣pists 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 defi∣ning what the whole Church is to believe, what is the sense of Scripture, re∣ceiving 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 onely 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 Page  178 as it excludes all others from being Bishops, I grant; as it onely 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 (Uni∣versal.)

I reply, Gregory not onely 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 onely 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 con∣sented to use it. We (the Bishops of Rome) do not seek nor yet accept this glo∣rious Title being offered unto us. Nor in the sense onely 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 there∣by assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop, but the supreme, which ap∣pears, 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 onely Bishop, for then they should have unbishopt themselves, which neither he nor they did. 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arroga∣ting 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 him∣self all the members of Christ, that he desired to be called in the World not onely 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 af∣fected not to be accounted the onely 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 Em∣perour, 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 Page  179 not to be accounted the onely Bishop, so as that none but he should be account∣ed 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-ser∣vants, 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 re∣ferred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him end it accord∣ing 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 Patri∣archate, 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 Ecclesia∣stical 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 onely; 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 uni∣versal 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 ac∣counted 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, per∣verse, 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 Page  180 Bishop, as if he would be the onely 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 Bi∣shop, as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Sub∣stitutes, 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 Juris∣diction 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 Empe∣rour 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 confirma∣tion of Mauritius the Emperour, as by the relation of his Life in Platina ap∣pears: 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 Coun∣cil of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome. Answ. In certain Privileges I grant, in original Authority or Juris∣diction 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-bi∣shop of old Rome, Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Con∣stantinople 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 com∣mon 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 Ca∣non. 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 Con∣stantinople should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Page  181 notwithstanding 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 Metro∣politan, namely, to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Dif∣ferences. And the meaning is, that each of those bishops of Rome, Alexan∣dria, 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 expres∣seth 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 onely 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.

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 imperi∣ously with them, but 〈◊〉 one of them, and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute. Emperours subscribed Councils, 〈…〉 cons•itution, but exe∣cution. 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.

Page  182 I 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 in∣struments) 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 Constanti∣nople (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 obedi∣entia 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 Juris∣diction 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 pre∣siding it is certain, that Constantine the great did not onely 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 con∣firmation, nor did the first Christian Emperours execute what the Pope or Council would have them, but the Councils and Popes did supplicate the Em∣perour 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 con∣sciences 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 uni∣versal Bishop also? Answ. I think him rather a particular Fool who can be∣lieve so gross a Fable: It was the credulous Relation of one Martinus Polonus a silly man (the onely 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.

Page  183 I 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. Pro∣testant 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 yield∣ed, 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 en∣deavoured to evade their testimony. And me thinks H. T. writes too grosly in conceiving him a particular Fool that can believe it, when Platina, Sabelli∣cus, 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 nati∣on 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 de∣stroyed, 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 De∣fence 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 con∣ceal 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 Cardi∣nals, 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, Cres∣well, 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 Ro∣man Catholicks with that Doctrine: which it's not likely they would have Page  184 done, 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 Do∣ctrine, 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, al∣leging 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 Al∣legeance, 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 an∣swers 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, al∣leging 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 fraudu∣lently 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 inti∣mate their allowing the killing of a Prince, when there is a Mandate or Sen∣tence 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 fol∣lows.

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

I reply, Doth H. T. think the Book is not now to be seen to detect his fal∣sity? Or that the Memorials of these things are lost, who goes about to ex∣cuse 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 into∣lerable in vices and filthiness, that they live in such a condition that not onely 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 cer∣tainly 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 Pro∣vincial 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 Sen∣tence 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 He∣reticks 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 ad∣vantage. It may mean, they will defend their Prince who is their Prince, yet not acknowledge Allegeance to their Prince, as being exempt from his Juris∣diction as Clergy-men, or their Prince ceasing to be their Prince being an He∣retick, 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 Page  168 not 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 pre∣judice to the Catholick faith, or to Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction is generated, or im∣pediment 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 per∣sons, 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 a∣mounted 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 onely the actions of former Papists for a thousand years past, but also of late their actings in Ire∣land, 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, San∣ctity, 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 pre∣sent Roman Church or Bishop, and no other, but his mistakes in these are shew∣ed. I follow him in the rest.