THE ROMISH CHAIN. BY EDMUND GURNAY, Parson, of Harpley. LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Matthew Law, and are to be sold at his Shop, near Saint Augustine's Gate. 1624. TO THE RIGHT Honourable, the Lords, Knights, Burgesses, and what other Suffragans, in the high Court of Parliament. HIS Majesty (Right Honourable, if it please you to remember) in his Epistle before the Remonstrance, does greatly magnify the third Estate of France, for preferring an Article in their Parliament, against their King's obnoxiousness unto Papal Deposition: In the defence of whose judgement therein, his Pen hath flourished out such a Defence of King's Rights, as shall never wither unto the end of the world. Now howsoever the Parliaments of England were never inferior unto those of France for zeal and vigilancy, toward the maintenance of their King's Supremacy; yet may it please you to suffer the words of exhortation, to persever in such vigilancy and fidelity, toward the Lord and his immediate Deputy: And as oft as you shall hear any of the night birds, croaking for the Roman foreigner, so often to double your industry, toward the treading out those vermin and damning up their puddles. And it may be, your judgement will take some incitation thereunto, if you shall at some vacant time vouchsafe a perusal of this treatise: the main argument for the Romish Title consisting of diverse propositions linked together, whereof not one is of force; as now God-willing (my leave first taken of your Honours) I shall apply myself to declare. DEDICATED unto Sir ROGER TOWNSEND; Knight-Baronet: FOr Virtue, sound Religion, Lineage, Titles, Moderation, Chastity, Manhood, Bounty, Industry, and governing so large an estate, in so green and uncuppled years; without peer. THE ROMISH CHAIN, AS far forth as universal Supremacy is supposed to descend unto him which now possesseth the Roman Papacy, by virtue of this Chayne-argument. 1 The Church militant must always have some praticular person for the universal Head thereof. 2 The Apostle Saint Peter in his time, was that particular person. 3 Only the Successors of Peter must be the like in their times. 4 Only the Bishops of Rome were the Successors of Peter in their times. 5 Only the Popes of Rome were the Successors of those Bishops in their times. 6 Only he which now possesseth the Roman Papacy, is the Successor of those Popes. Ergo, He and only He, which now possesseth the Roman Papacy, is at this day universal Head of the Church militant. So far forth we propound unto the world, this answer following. Concerning therefore the first link of the chain, (and so to the rest in order) our protestation against it is this: that neither does any Scripture imply, nor strength of argument enforce, nor any writer for the space of five thousand years from the beginning of the world, determine, that the Church militant must always have some one particular person for the universal Head thereof. For first concerning Scriptures; howsoever some particular text do speak wondrous eminently of some particular persons; as amongst others these following; 1 Psalm ●● I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance etc. 2 Esay. ●. He shall judge amongst the nations etc. 3 Esay. 49. King's shall be thy nursing fathers etc. 4 Psal 45. I will make thy name to be remembered etc. 5 Psal: 5. Lord what is man that thou art so mindful of him etc. 6 Esay. 45.13. He shall build my City etc. 7 Psal 90. 1●. He will give his Angels charge over thee etc. 6 Psal. 90.13. Thou shalt tread upon the Lion and the Dragon etc. and the like we answer: that from the time that any Scripture was first given, until the last period thereof, and for five hundred years after, (not to say a thousand) these kind of texts were never expounded, but either of the Messias himself (as the two first quoted:) or of his Spouse the Church (as the third and fourth:) or of the condition of mankind in general (as the fifth and sixth:) or of every godly man in particular (as the two last:) but never of the pretended universal Head. Secondly concerning strength of argument, that neither it can so enforce, we prove; Because there cannot be imagined any benefit (use and benefit carrying all the moment in moral necessities) which may redound to the church by means of such universal Head: but such as may as well and far better redound there unto, by the means of special and several heads according as the several Continents, languages, and quarters of the earth, by the Divine providence are distributed. For though their may seem to ensue great hope of universal Peace and Unity, when all the strings of government shall thus be settled in one only hand; yet such peace as is atteined only by the extinguishment of plural excellency, will prove little better than Anarchy, or Pedancy, and such as ignorant persons, (*) wisd. 14.22. yea the very brute beasts are capable of. For they having all their wit confined unto one only head (the head of their keeper,) do by that means the more quietly go in and out unto their pasture: But as it is not good for man to be alone, so neither is it good for the Church to be so allone as that one parson Cow-heard-like, may rule in all alone: for that beside peace and unity there is requisite also difference and variety unto the perfection of Christian Society: Arist. pol. 2.2. the very light of nature teaching us that too much unity dissolves a city (as unisons drown harmony) and makes it degenerate into a family; much more, such a degree of unity as shall reduce all Cities as it were into one family under one pater patriae, So far therefore may it be that this universal Supremacy should produce any desirable peace and unity, as that more likely an universal dullness and Lethargy would ensue thereof; and that as well in the pretended head himself, as in the body. For what condition of life can be imagined, more tedious, uncouth and uncomfortable, then that which this universal head must continually abide in, when there shall not be found upon earth any peer or consort, or helper for him like himself! whereas the very Deity, which notwithstanding so infinitely excels for Simplicity and unity does entertain plurality and Society; witness the Trinity: as also the Kings upon earth are not without their brother-kings, (some elder and some younger) to consort withal. Yea besides this desolation and solitude, what incumbrancy and servitude will ensue thereupon. For first concerning the head himself; how intolerable his burden must need be, who can imagine? For if that renowned Moses was so tired with the leading of only one people, and they of his own language, into the earthly Canaan: how must he look to be tired, vexed, and perplexed which shall have the leading of all people, nations and languages into the heavenly Canaan? he being composed of flesh and blood (no doubt) as much as Moses was, and as much subject unto mortality, casualty, necessity, infirmity and Sin; yea incomparably coming short of Moses (unless it be in his own particular conceit) for all kind of graces and divine assistance: It being expreslly said, that The Lord knew Moses face to face; Deut. 34.7.10. that his like was never known, that he was the friend of God; that after six score years his eye was never dim, nor his natural force abated; Moses also having his brother Aaron to share with him in the main business, and the rulers over thousands, hundreds, and fifties, Exod. 18. ●1 to save him the labour of inferior causes; The Lord also most miraculusly, both raining daily unto the people a bread from heaven, and preserving their clothing from waxing old, Deut. 8. ●. 4▪ therein saving him the care for their temporal necessaries: & yet not withstanding so groaned Moses under his burden as that sometime he broke forth into this wish, Numb. 11.15. that God would rather kill him then continue him in such misery. And as for the bondage which the Body of the Church must likewise undergo, by means of this universal Supreme, who can utter it? For the members of the Church being dispersed over the face of the whole earth; some of them must of necessity be as far in situation from their head as the very Antipodes; and so by that means shall have no principles of Faith, no determinations of controversies, and (in effect) no executions of justice, but such as must be appealeable, one suspendable from, until a person dwelling in the furthest parts of the world be made acquainted therewith▪ and shall have ratified the same. Yea, (yet further) how scandalous must these courses needs be in the eyes of jews, and those which are without; and what a stumbling block in their way? for when the jew shall read in his (and our) Prophets, that under the new covenant men shall so abound with knowledge as that they shall not need (in comparison) jer. 31.31. etc. to go to their next neighbour for it, it shall be so written in their hearts: will he ever be brought to believe, that the Gospel which the Christians embrace can be that new covenant; or that our Christ can be that Messias, under whom knowledge is universally confined (at least for certainty and infallibility) unto the breast of only one particular person? Or can he justly be argued of obstinacy, if he resolves rather still to continue under Moses Law, which never enjoined him to go farther than the bounds of Canaan, (which for quantity exceeded not ours of England) for any kind of knowledges, sentences, resolutions, appeals, or determinations whatsoever? And as for the Infidels which are wholly without; can it be marvelled if they likewise resolve, rather still to worship the Sun and Moon in the Firmament, which once a day do supervise them, than this only Son of God; if He hath but one immediate vessel of his grace for all his followers to draw at, and that under the lock and key of only one particular person, and he confined unto one particular Angle of the earth? yea, what course can be imagined, more apt to enforce and disperse contagion, Heresy, & Apostasy, through the whole body of the Church, when the poluting, or perverting of only one particular person, shall be the corrupting and infecting of the universal head thereof? yea, finally what temptations or provocations more forcible toward the erecting of a second Babel; when all the world shall be brought to obey only one man, and consequently to learn only one Language (perhaps the Latin) Gen. 11● which God himself hath branded for the main cause of attempting the building of the first Babel? These kind of dangers, difficulties, scandals, bondages, & abasements considered, and put in the balance against all imaginable conveniences or benefits, which may redound unto the Church, by means of this universal Head; if they shall overpoyze: we may thereupon conclude, that no strength of argument can enforce the accepting thereof. Finally, whereas we thirdly protested, that no writer (of what kind soever) for the first five thousand years (ab initio mundi;) did ever maintain the necessity of this universal Head; we take, that to be sufficiently proved until instance be made to the contrary▪ and that no kind of author of reckoning whatsoever, did at any time so determine; this alone may be proof sufficient. For that all the possible knowledge which writers can have, being either from Scripture or from argument (that which comes by revelation being Scripture itself if (as we have proved) neither of these two original lights acknowledge it, what good writer can affirm it? much less maintain it for a principle of the faith? especially considering how all the principles of the faith are so evident, as partly both these lights acknowledge them, witness the decalogue: and partly one of these lights (namely Scripture) does so abundantly acknowledge them, as that ever since the Apostles time, they have been agreed upon, witness the Articles of faith. How then shall those pass for tolerable writers, which will avouch, not only for a truth, but also for a principle, that, which neither of these lights give any lustre unto? yea and for such a principle, as rather should give light unto all other principles, then need to borrow light of any whatsoever. For it erecting a Head for every soul upon pain of damnation to look up unto, and depend upon; what less degree of light can be requisite unto it then that which may make it clear enough even for runners to read it, and the most weak sighted to find it even as readily as sucklings find the pap: whereas on the contrary it is not only destitute of such immediate, instinctive and noon shine light, but also is as utterly void and uncapable of light as darkness itself. judge then reader of what validity the first link of the chain is; which if it cannot hold; the conclusion must of necessary fall to the ground: this being the condition of Soriticall and Chain▪ arguments that if but one of the propositions fail the conclusion cannot follow. So, as were this first proposition granted them, yet could it also be nothing for their purpose, unless every one following be made good, especially the next, which is this: The Apostle Peter in his time was this universal Head. Against which position, our demonstration shall be this: The Kings and Governors which lived in the time of Peter, had more authority over their Christians which lived in their dominions, than Peter had: Peter therefore was not universally the Christians Head. That those Kings and Governors had such authority more than Peter had; we prove: because they stood more deeply charged from God, to improve those Christians unto the glory of God than Peter did. For the only end why God gives authority unto men over one another, being this; that Mankind may be the more fully improved unto his glory; he by that means having the honour, not only of particular persons, but also of Societies, Families, Cities, Countries and Kingdoms, it must of necessity follow, that such as are more deeply charged to improve a company unto God's glory, must also have the greater power and authority over that company which they so stand charged with. Now that those Kings were more deeply charged so to improve those Christians than Peter was, we thus prove; by they had greater means so to do: every man's charge being answerable unto his means, Luk. 12. unto whom much is given (as our Saviour tells us) there being much of him to be required; and, the more mighty (as Solomon adds) being to expect the sorer trial. Wisd▪ 6.8. Now that the means of these kings were greater than the means of Peter, we thus finally declare: first because it was in their power to protect those their Christian Subjects from persecutions, & so to open a door unto their preaching; whereas Peter was not able so much as to protect himself no not to save his own shoulders from the whip. Secondly for that it was also in there powers to endow those their Christians with privileges and jurisdictions, whereby such as were otherwise untractable unto the gospel might by the means of such temporal hopes and fears (which the carnal minded are only sensible of) be won or prepared thereunto. Thirdly, and principally, because they had at their dispose and command (though only in the Lord we grant, and no otherwise could Peter or any mortal man have at command) the gifts, abilities, and mysteries of those their Christian Subjects; the Lord expressly charging every soul (amongst them) to be subject unto the higher powers; and (even out of Peter's own mouth) Rom. 1●. 1 1 Pet. ●. 13. that they should submit themselves unto every ordinance of man, whether unto the King as the Supreme, etc. So as though those Kings were not in their own persons endued with such gifts and graces as were necessary unto Christian government, at least not so abundantly endued as Peter; yet as long as they had the dispose, and authority over such persons as were so endued; it was as well in effect as if they had been actually so endued themselves; and of the two, the better by the Philosophers rule, Arist. deport. an. 4 10. who judged man's condition in being borne naked, to be therein rather better then worse than the Beasts; for that man might by that means turn his (naked) hand into a Spear, a Spade, a Sword, a Sceptre, a Staff, a Pen, or what he list; and shift his garments when he list: whereas the beast hath no shift but must always sleep in his clothes and shoes, and with his weapons about him of necessity. The means therefore which those Kings had for the improouing of those Christians unto the propagation (yea plantation) of the Gospel, must be acknowledged to be far greater than the means of Peter, and so consequently there charge to be greater. For though it is easily granted that those Heathen Kings did little regard or feel any such charge▪ but rather abused and hated the means thereof; yet is not that material; our question being, not what there feeling or practice was, but what their duty and charge was: which if it was greater than Peter's, then also by the proportion of common justice, their authority also must be greater. And so finally if their Authority over those Christians was greater than Peter's; Peter could not be their Head (and so not universally the Christians Head) unless it should be supposed, either that Peter was a subordinate head (which is indeed no head but a subject) or that those Christians were under two several and undependant heads, which both the law of Nature, and also the law of Grace abhors: it being as well a proverb as a text, Math. 6. that no man canserue two Masters. For whereas it use to be pleaded that though those Kings had a Sovereignty over those Christians in Temporal Affairs, yet might Peter have it in matters Spiritual: Such distinction does deal no better with the Subject, than that * 1 Kings 3.26. false Mother did, which was content that the Infant should be divided: the thus dividing Sovereignty being not only a cleaving of the Head▪ but also a renting of the subject in twain. For admit that he which hath Supremacy in spirituals, should have never so little command, were it but of the least finger of the hand, or the least digit of the foot, yet might he by means of it, either draw the service of the whole body, or so cramp and torment the whole body, as that he which should have the command of all the rest, should have no joy, nor service thereof: much more than if he hath so great a share as the signification of Spirituals may be extended unto; & that not only in lawful sense, but also in a proper and necessary sense: there being no gift, endowment or capacity in man, but which both may and also aught to be an instrument of the Spirit, (than the which what can be more properly called Spiritual) we being bound to serve the Lord, not only with heart and soul, but with all our might; 1 Cor. 10.13. even our very eating and drinking (the most common act that is) being charged to intend the glory of God; which not only is a Spiritual end, but also the end of all spirituals whatsoever. If Peter therefore must have any Supreamacy at all (especially in spirituals) he must of necessity have all: Sovereignty (like punctum or unitas Mathematica) being undividable. For though Sovereignty may be seated in diverse persons, as namely in a State (as it is seated in but one in a Monarchy) yet must the Authority in every mandate go together; as likewise every person must obey it, not at halves, but with his whole man; and * Eccles. 9.10. whatsoever thine hand shall find to do thou must do it with all thy power. This then being beaten out for a ground, that Peter either must have all the Sovereignty or none; come we up cheerly (gentle Reader) close to the point, and see what evidence can be brought for Peter's absolute and sole Supremacy. And (not to say what is aleadged for this purpose but to say more than so) all that can be aleadged must tend to the making good this Argument. He which in his time surpassed all men for Spiritual gifts and holiness, good reason he should overrule. But Peter so surpassed all men in his time: Peter therefore must be the supreme. Whereunto we answer; that neither of the grounds are found. For as we acknowledge no cause why Peter's gifts should be esteemed of a more infallible and divine element than others of the time (as by and by we shall more fully answer) so neither is the proposition to be granted which presumeth, that the more spiritual a man is, the more he should be possessed with Authority. For as the wife oftentimes may be more holy than the Husband, and excel him in virtue, both for wisdom, government, sobriety; yea even for courage and bodily strength, (especially in his sickness and decrepit age) and yet stands charged in conscience to give him the pre-eminence: So may a Subject excel his Prince for personal virtues and spiritual mysteries, and yet still remain charged to be a Subject; the main reason hereof being this; for that the virtues of a Subject are habitually in his Prince, and so more properly his Princes then his own; as the virtues of the Wife are more her Husbands then her own; 1 Cor. 11.7.9. the Woman being made for the Man, and being the glory of the Man: and so a dignity and reputation unto the man. When therefore it is urged for the pre-eminence of the spiritual men (by Spiritual men whether we mean every member of Christ, or only the Ministers of Christ it is not material) that in Scripture they be usually termed the Shepherds and Pastors of the Church, the Lights of the World, etc. we answer, that our question is not concerning the excellency, but concerning the dependency of their gifts; we maintaining that the pastoral skill is subordinate unto that power which lays out the Pastures, and assigneth the Foulds, and keeps off the Wolves; which being the proper offices of Kings and Governors, they are to be reputed (as in writers both Divine & Humane they be ordinarily termed) the principal Shepherds. Though truly and properly the Lord only is the Shepherd, in respect of whom all Kings, Governors, and Pastors whatsoever are but as sheep before Him; though of his grace and for his purposes, He will have them amongst men reputed as Shepherds; some of them to be as his Pages, and some only as Bell-wether; whereof these have power to lead the flocks, so far as they have ears to hear, and list to follow the tingling of their Bell: and the Pages, to lead and drive them whether they have list or Noah. So likewise when Spiritual men are called Lights; though the Scripture expounds them to be but Candlesticks of such Lights, Revel. 1. &. 2. yet may they be inferior unto those which follow their light, as much as the Lantherne-bearer is inferior unto his following Master; or as the understanding is inferior to the Will; whereunto though it be a guide, yet is it also a Subject; the Will having power to in force both objects and principles upon it. Axioma Theolog. As therefore the Moon and not the Sun, is said to rule the Night, though all the light wherewith the Moon rules, she receives of the Sun: So he which possesseth the Throne must be esteemed the ruler of the people, and not he which is possessor of the Light; though it must be confessed that all good rule is by the direction of the light. And as the Sun being beneath the Moon, and under the Earth, can do nothing in the time of the night, but so far forth as it can cast his beams into the lap and capacity of the Moon, which by virtue of her conspicuous eminency hath only the power to disperse light unto all that are under it: so the Spiritual man during his being (as it were under the earth) in an earthen vessel, and in a private condition▪ can do nothing with authority, but in the virtue and power of him that sits in the Throne: the main reason hereof being this; for that the rude and ignorant (for whose only ordering and government Authority is imparted unto men) can incomparably better deserve who is a possessor of the Throne, than who is a possessor of the Spirit▪ and so by that means more certainly know whom they are to obey. For as in Wedlock, had the Lord ordained that the holier or the wiser of the two should be the Head, there must needs ensue continual discord and uncertainty in the Family, who should be the Head: the woman often times being (seeming at least) the holier, wiser &c. whereas he expressly determining that the man shall be Head (which with the least turn of the eye is discerned) so all controversy is ended, and the weakest of the Family easily resolved, who (in case of difference about things indifferent) ought to be obeyed. So in greater societies, had the Lord ordained that the most holy, or the most spiritual should be head, there must needs have ensued the like uncertainty and discord who he should be: he that is holy or spiritual to day, being apt to be otherwise (at least in appearance) to morrow; and such as be most unholy, being as apt to carry an appearance of the holiest; whereas he expressly setting it down, that he which wears the Crown, or sits in the Throne, or bears the the Sword should be Head, all such strife is soon at at end; the weakest that is being able with ease to discern who such persons be. For, though oftentimes Usurpers may get possession of the Crown or the Sword; yet is that nothing so hard to discern, as who is a false Professor of the Spirit: Time, place, person, descent, records, and titles (which carnal men can judge of, and lay together) being of sufficient force to detect who is an Usurper: all which though they be but circumstances, yet are they such, as a man can have no better for the discerning his own father, whom notwithstanding he stands charged in conscience to obey. Better therefore that authority be tied to the Crown, then to the Spirit; and that not only in regard of man's necessities, but also more especially for the effecting the Lords own purposes; who by this means can correct or scourge a whole Nation, and yet smite only one particular person: namely by suffering their Prince or Head to become a Tyrant or a Babe: whereupon (as himself hath taught us) a woe must befall the whole Land: Esay. 3.4. whereas were the Crown continually kept and possessed by the Spirit, such a kind of Rod should find no place. For as concerning those which think there is no necessity for this consequence, because in case a Babe or a Tyrant supplies the Throne, the whole Nation need not be obnoxious unto any smart thereby, for that it is thought lawful, yea necessary to cut off such Babes and Tyrants. We answer, that such opinion is not only most impious and presumptuous against God, but also most preposterous, monstrous, unjust, and ridiculous before men. First, most impious it is; because it is the common Ordinance of God that we should obey and honour Princes; yea that we should honour our particular Fathers, much more the Fathers of the whole Country: so far must we be from abasing them, especially in case of their imbecility. How impious then must they needs be, which will handle their Princes no better than caityfes, and most desperate members? Secondly, most presumptuous it is, both for that it puts him by, whom the Lord will have reign, namely that Babe, or that Tyrant for the purpose aforesaid; and also for that it does interpose a judgement seat betwixt the Lord, and him whom the Lord will have his most immediate, his very next, his own Anointed. And as for the monstrousness of it, it appears in this: both for that it supposeth a power in the Body above the Head; namely that power which must cut the Head off; in the room of which head, in case another head should grow up; yet must it still be under that power of the Body; which is most preposterous; and also (in case no such head grows up) for that either the Body must remain without a head (which will still be monstrous) or some other member must supply the heads place which will be miserably ridiculous: For when the inferior members which cannot discern a Head from a Hand or a Foot, but only by the outward shape and figure thereof, shall see (suppose) a hand or at least that which is like a hand to be in the place of the head; they must needs a great while take it for but a fellow member, and so not do it that respect and obedience which to the Head is due; and then when at length after many admonitions they have learned to see the power of an Head under the shape of an hand; yet withal when they shall also learn how that hand came there; namely by cutting off the unsound or foolish Head: what remains but that they think it necessary, (at least lawful) for them to observe whether that Hand be found, or whether some fit of a Chyragra be not growing upon it: which if they find; what else but that some other member be thought of for the place? and than who perhaps so likely to put forward as the Foot? which if it attains to the place of the Head; as it must needs be a miserable shame and confusion to the Domestic members, so how can it be otherwise then a most horrible scorn unto the foreign enemies? and as good sport as the walking of men with their heels upwards, is to idle beholders. Yea what more unjust even in the eyes of common Sense, then that the Master-builder should be at this pass, either to give account of the soundness of his work unto those which are beneath him; or else to be at their mercy to have the Stage pulled from under him? But, Christian Reader, I fear me you think I have committed an excursion; and yet I pray suffer me to answer one Objection more, which is thought to be of Demonstrative force for the Intitling the Spiritual man to the Throne before any: and it is this. The first Adam upon his fall did forfeit all the domini- and titles which the Lord upon his Creation had set him in: Such therefore as have no other birth but from the first Adam, can have no title to dominions or authorities whatsoever: and therefore they which are borne of the second Adam (unto whom the first Adam's inheritance must lapse unto) must be the only true Heirs thereof; and consequently as men are more or less borne of the second Adam (that is, as they are more or less Spiritual) they shall more or less have titles to Kingdoms, Lordships, properties or capacities whatsoever, and no otherwise. Whereunto we answer; first, that though Adam upon his fall did lose the sweetness of his dominions (the curse of God invading it) yet does it not follow but that he might still retain the state and title thereof; even as a rich man when he falls into some tormenting disease, and so hath no joy of all his riches, yet still remains seized and possessed of his riches nevertheless. Secondly, the estate and dominion which God gave unto Adam, though it might be a joy & dignity unto him, yet was it principally to be taken in the nature of a charge; which charge it was not in Adam's power to avoid or forfeit upon his trespass and fall, but rather to double and increase it thereupon: a man's voluntary dashing his abilities, being no dispensation for his duties; negligence being of no more force to discharge us, then voluntary ignorance is to excuse us. Thirdly, that the Lord did make unto the first Adam, a general grant of universal propriety and dominion, we expressly find (Gen. 1.28. etc.) but that he did revoke the same we find not. Paradise indeed, both the heavenly (the fruition of God) and also the earthly (the Garden of Eden) we find expressly that it was taken from him: but we also find as expressly, that it was given him only upon condition of his obedience: whereas the donation of universal dominion had no such condition annexed unto it. Fourthly, had Adam apprehended that superiority and dominion should upon his Fall, be conveyed unto men by the course of Grace, and not by the course of Nature: he would never have entitled his ungracious first borne unto all his possessions, as the name Cain signifies, and left nothing for his best-borne, but (the younger brothers portion) vanity, as the name Abel signifies. Fiftly, the Lord every where so establishing the heathen Princes in their States and Kingdoms; as Pharaoh, Nabuchadnezar, Cyrus, Ahashuerosh, Darius, Caesar, etc. who had no kind of right thereunto, but by the Law of Nations, which hath his original only from (consecrated reason) the Law of the first Adam, of whom only they were descended (the second Adam being to them unknown;) it may sufficiently teach that no revocation of original Dominions did follow upon the fall. But finally and principally, and in stead of all, may be this; for that the second Adam and his line (unto whom only such supposed forfeiture was to extend) did never make the least title or claim thereunto: either when he was first promised, or when he was first made manifest in the flesh. For as concerning the time when he was first promised, so far was he then from taking any vantage of the Fall; as that the first mention of him did promise a Succour against our Enemy that gave the Fall; in these words: The seed of the Woman, shall bruise the Serpent's head. Hebr. 11. Likewise his firstborn Abel (who by faith in him offered the the good Sacrifice) was so far from attaining any superiority by virtue of his being borne of him, as that it proved the only cause of his earthly ruin: his Brother therefore hating him because his works were good; 1 joh. 3.12. and his works (we know) being therefore only good, because he was borne of him. So also the patriarchs and holy men in their times; did they not always account themselves rather loser's then gainers by this second birth? they every where undergoing tributes and bondages more willingly and more faithfully than any. And as for the time of the second adam's manifesting himself in the flesh; so far was he then also from claiming any of the first Adam's rights, as that upon all occasions, he professeth the main intent of his coming, to be for the restoring of his losses, even though it were with the loss of his own life: every where styling himself no better than The Son of Man; which the meanest of Adam's Race might assume as well as he: and finally, as often telling us that his Kingdom was not of this world; that he came not to be ministered unto, but to minister; that he had not whereon to lay his head, and refusing so much as to arbitrate a matter betwixt two brethren (which the most private persons that are may be allowed to do) lest he should seem to take upon him the Office of a judge, and so leave a conceit in his followers that some degree of Authority might be derived from him: every where finally prescribing such courses, and advising all that desired to grow great in him, to exceed only in humility, preferring therefore a child before them all, when they strove who should be the greatest: Mat. 20.25. and telling them (in effect) that authority and greatness was to be derived only from the Kings of the Nations. Mat. 28.18. For whereas after his ascension he tells us that All power was given him both in Heaven and in Earth, His meaning therein is only this; that now all power both in Heaven and Earth should be under his humanity, as before it was under his Deity; and that as all men, even Adam himself and all his race were formerly under him as he was the Son of God: so now they should likewise be under him as he was the Son of man. For the effecting thereof there needed no alteration of States, or new conveyances▪ for that as all other creatures both in Heaven and in Earth; whether Angels, Beasts, Worms, Plants, Stones, or whatsoever; are likewise become subject unto this manhood, and yet still retain their orders, natures, and properties as before: Angels remaining Angels; Beasts remaining Beasts; Lions, Lions; Stones▪ Stones, etc. so does it no otherwise follow but that mankind may likewise become subject unto the manhood of God; and yet all men still to continue in their former properties: Kings, remaining Kings; Princes, Princes; Fathers, Masters, Husbands, Wives, Subjects, Sons, Servants, in their former condition; and (as the Apostles tell us) Every man in the same calling wherein he was called, 1 Cor. 7.24. as well after his birth in the Second Adam as in the first. For as the second Adam did not think good to be the Father of a new generation by the course of Nature; wherewith to propagate his Church, but made choice of the old Adam's issue to new graft upon. So may we conceive it to be a course most answerable thereunto, that when he means to adorn and bespangle his Church with Sceptres, Crowns and Authorities, He will not make new Crowns or new Sceptres, or take away Crowns and Sceptres from the old possessors, to adorn his followers withal: but only new graft upon those old Crowns and Potentates; and so most sweetly bring it to pass, that though he does not make his followers Kings, yet does he make Kings his followers. Which as it is all one for the outward glory and countenance of the Gospel, so it is far more agreeing with the property and profession of the Gospel; namely in winning Kings unto the grace of God, by gentle, easy, weak, and peaceable means; making choice of Sheep, and not Wolves or Lions for his Ambassadors, and that when he sends to Wolves and Lions and worse than Tigers: that so those Rebels in the day of visitation when they see how the Lord hath dealt with them, and how in stead of sheep he could have sent wolves and Lions in their own kind, to have worried and destroyed them; then as overcome with the coals of fire which his long suffering had cast upon them, they with all their hearts and souls, present him and his Gospel with their Sceptres, Crowns, Dignities, and Possessions: yea they thus break forth into most vehement and sincere protestations (as our so Christian Sovereign hath taught them) unto his Majesty alone I have devoted my Sceptre, Remonstr. Anglice. pag. 249. my Sword, my Pen, my whole industry; my whole self with all that is mine in whole and in part: I do it, I do it, in all humble acknowledgement of his unspeakable favour, etc. * Pag. ult. to whose service as a most humble homager and vassal, I consecreate all the glory, honour, lustre and splendour of my earthly Kingdoms. We conclude then, that neither divine ordinance, nor Church benefit, does enforce or persuade this ground (without which Saint Peter cannot be entitled unto Sovereignty;) that the more spiritual men are, the more they ought to be possessors of Authority: which conclusion also were it granted, yet would not Peter's Supremacy thereupon ensue, unless it be also proved, that in Spiritual gifts and graces Peter must of necessity be acknowledged to surmount all persons: which we grant not. For as concerning the Text and collections which use to be alleged for that purpose; as namely that Peter is ordinarily first named when the Apostles are rehearsed. 2. That our Saviour three several times gave him charge to feed his sheep. 3. That our Saviour particularly told him that he had prayed for him. 4. That our Saviour paid the tribute for him. 5. Did more ordinarily discourse with him, than any of the rest. 6. Gave him a new name. 7. Termed him a Rock, and promised to build his Church upon him. 8. Gave him the Keys of heaven. 9 And finally, wrought especially by him in the Primitive Church affairs. We thus shortly answer them in order. And first concerning his nominal priority, we answer, that it is not of force to entitle him unto any principality; it being not avoidable amongst the most equals, but that there must be such kind of precedency; as for example in the Trinity: though neither is Peter every where first named; both a Gal. 2. james and b joh. 1.40 Andrew being sometime named before him. 2. And as for our Saviour's triple charging him to feed his sheep: we answer, That it is rather a check then a grace, to be often called upon to do a duty: and in that it is said that Peter was sorry when it was said unto him the third time, etc. it may seem that Peter took it no otherwise; as perhaps conceiting such tripling of his charge, to be in the way of a glance at his triple denial. 3. Fron the like consideration of Peter's weakness (we answer to the third) might proceed our Saviour's telling him, that He had prayed for him. For no doubt our Saviour's prayer was as frequent & effectual for the rest, though he saw not the like cause to tell them so much. 4. And as for our Saviour's paying the tribute for him; we answer, that it may rather argue Peter's poverty and subjection, than any kind of excellency and dominion: the rest also perhaps not being liable to the tribute which was then demanded; either because they were no dwellers at Capernaum, as Peter was; and so it might be if it were the Emperor's tribute; or for that they were not the first borne in their Families, of whom only the other tribute (toward the Temple) was demanded. 5. And as for our Saviour's so ordinary discoursing with Peter; we answer, that it is ordinary with natural Fathers, to make choice rather of their little ones to oppose and discourse withal, than their men grown sons; especially when their intent therein is to teach standers by; the most ready answerers rather than the more wary being fittest for such purposes. 6. And as for the new naming of Peter; we answer, that diverse of the rest also had new names given them; as Levi being new-named Matthew; Saul, Paul; james and john Boanerges; which name being by interpretation the sons of thunder, may far better resemble persons of Authority, than Peter's new name of Cephas or Petros; for that a Stone, as those names signify, is more fit to make a Subject than a Head, if names should be regarded. 7. Now as for our Saviour's terming Peter a Rock, and promising to build His Church upon him; we answer, that neither doth that Text give Peter any higher pre-eminence, for that the rest of the Apostles were styled by higher terms than so; even no less than absolute and several foundations of the Church; the wall of new jerusalem being said (Revel. 21.14.) to have twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles: Another Text also (Ephes. 2.20.) making not only the rest of the Apostles, but also the Prophets as deep in the foundation as he; when it saith, that the Church was founded upon the Prophets and Apostles; in which Text also it being further added, that jesus Christ is the Head Corner Stone; If Peter should so be esteemed a Rock, as to be the Rock alone, he should so not only surmount his fellows (contrary to those Texts) but also our Saviour himself. 8. Nor again does our Saviour's giving Peter the Keys of heaven, any whit advance Peter above the rest of the Apostles, unto whom these heavenly Keys, whether the keys of knowledge, the keys of binding and losing, the keys of remitting and retaining, or the Keys of David (if there be any odds or difference amongst these keys) were as expressly given. For first, as touching the keys of Knowledge; those we find, even the Scribes and Pharisees and common Lawyers not to be destitute of: and as for the keys of remitting and retaining sin; those also our Saviour does plurally give, when he sayeth; Whose sins ye remit, joh. 20.23. they are remitted, etc. though to speak truly and properly, neither Peter, nor any mortal man ever had power to remit sin, but only as the Priests in the Old Law had power to cleanse Leprosy; which was only by pronouncing according unto the Leviticall Rules, Levit. 13. who were clean, and who not; the cognizance of Leprosy being confined only unto them, and none in the Congregation being reputable for clean, (after presumptions to the contrary) but only whom they so pronounced. Thirdly, the keys of binding and losing (if they must differ from the former) are likewise found given to the rest, when our Saviour saith, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; where the Relative (ye) is thought to extend (in the judgement of * Theophilact: in Mat. 18.18. non solum quae solvunt sacerdotes— sed quae et nas— sunt soluta et lig. good Expositors) not only to the rest of the Apostles, but also (in case there spoken of) to every member of Christ. Finally, concerning the keys of David, which (our Saviour in his glory professing himself to be the keeper of) may seem to have the pre-eminence; Reu. 3.7. we find long before Peter's time to have been committed unto the Prophet jeremy (under the name of Eliachim) in these words: Esa. 22.22. I will lay the key of David upon his shoulders; he shall shut, and none shall open; he shall open, and none shall shut: Wherein then consists the peculiarity of Peter's Keys? For though when our Saviour promised him them, he termed them the Keys of Heaven; yet for as much as the Keys of binding, losing, opening, shutting, remitting etc. do concern no other gates than the gates of Heaven; such nominal explications annexed unto Peter's Keys, can give no real Specialty unto them. Especially considering how the Key of Faith which every believer must have as well as Peter, is also the Key of Heaven; yea and such a Key, as without it, none of the other Keys can, and yet, it, without all the rest, is able, to open Heaven Gates alone. Though truly and properly we must always remember, that he only is able to open the heavens, which hath made the heavens; His precious blood being the only true Key indeed; and his Word revealing so much, being the handle of that Key; and the faith of man being the hand, which by means of that handle, His Word, does turn that Key his blood, upon the main boult, sin; which only hath shut Heaven gates against the Sons of Men. 9 Finally concerning Peter's agencye and employment in the Church affairs more than others, we answer: that the principal Agents and Speakers are not always of necessity the principal persons: Advocates and pleaders, exceeding judges and Precedents in such Offices; Exod. 4.16. Act. 14. the High Priest Aaron being as a mouth unto Moses, though Moses was as God unto him: and the men of Lystra esteeming Paul to be therefore inferior unto Barnabas (as much as Mercury was unto jupiter) because Paul was the chief speaker. Secondly, though we find Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, to take up the occasions of Speech very often and abundantly; yet may we observe divers tokens of more eminency in others; especially in Paul, john, and both the james: the one of these being graced with no meaner term than the Lords brother; Gal. 1. 1●. & the other being named of Paul (and before Peter) amongst those which were accounted pillars: Gal. 2. mention also being made of him with more authority then of any the rest: as when james did but say (Act. 15.19.) my sentence is &c. presently without more ado the Text addeth (v. 22.) It seemed good unto the Apostles to send, Act. 21.18. etc. james also being only named when Paul was dispensed withal for his condescending unto the jewish rites. And as concerning john, we find; first that he is usually called the Disciple whom jesus loved; that our Saviour permitted him to lean on his breast at his last Supper: joh. 19.26. made him the Son of his own Mother, & as a guardian unto her: gave him the grace to write his Gospel in the divinest manner; with answerable Canonical Epistles: as also made him the immediate penman of his special Epistles to the seven Churches: Reu. 2. & finally revealed unto him the future estate of the whole Church unto the end of the world. And as touching Paul; these peculiar excellencies we find concerning him. First, Act. ●. Act 13.2. that his calling was by the Lords immediate voice from heaven; was separated by the appointment of the holy Ghost; was reckoned amongst the Prophets of his time; abounded in unwritten revelations, as john did in the written; foretold the immediate blindness of Elimas (which was answerable unto Peter's like prediction of the death of Ananias) took the care of all the Churches; 2 Cor. 11.28. Rom. 15. Laboured more than they all; would not build on another's foundation; had the largest Province, namely over all the Gentiles; wrote most canonical Epistles; most magnified his Office; stood most upon his Authority, affirming that who so despised his Doctrine despised God; commending his own example, 1 Thes. 4. ● and citing his own authority (behold I Paul, I say unto you etc.) and finally rebuking Peter to the face. Whereas concerning Peter, as he is not any where noted for spiritual excellency and infallibility more than others, Galat. 5. ●. so on the contrary he is more expressly touched for infirmities and fails then any. Witness both his overweening of his own strength, and boasting that he would never forsake his Master, when before the next morning he denied him and forswear him. Witness his ignorance of the main intent of our Saviour's coming (in dissuading him from suffering) whereupon he was called Satan. Witness his ignorance of the Catholic extension of the Gospel; (in refusing to admit the Gentiles thereunto.) And witness finally his timorousness in using Christian liberty for fear of angering the jews: with other fails. For though we reverence the memory of Saint Peter as a choice vessel of God's Grace; yet when we see him so advanced above his fellows, & that only for the exalting his pretended Successors so incomparably above their fellows no man can justly be offended if we note that Peter was lefthanded no less than his Fellows. But for a final answer, thus we conclude; that neither: Peter nor Paul, nor james nor john, did sway the affairs of the Primative Church, but jointly the Twelve together. For both the choosing the new Apostle, the ordaining the seven Deacons▪ the deciding controversies, the disposing Provinces, the sending Barnabas to Antioch, Peter & john into Samaria, the taking account of Peter's going to the Gentiles (notwithstanding his Divine warrant therefore) were all the joint Acts of the whole Twelve. The decrees finally going forth in no other name but in the name of the Twelve. Act. 15.22. & 16.4. So as concerning any sovereignty, supremacy, primacy, or superexcellency (of necessity to be granted) in the person of Peter; we may finally conclude; that neither did our Saviour ordain it, nor the Apostles acknowledge it, or invest him with it, (as there was no cause why they should, his common infirmities considered) nor did Peter himself take it upon him, but rather exceeded them all in subjection; as both his long journey into Samaria, Act. 8.4. Act. 11.2. when the Twelve sent john & him; his giving account of his actions when they were (though unjustly) excepted against; & his suffering a public rebuke at the hands of one which was none of the Twelve, may testify; as also his so express teaching submission whether unto Kings as the Supremes, 1 Pet. 2.13. or unto governors, etc. admonishing those of his own sort, not to carry themselves as Lords over God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5. & never in his Epistles intitling himself otherwise than a Servant of jesus Christ, or an elder, or an Apostle at the most. Whereas had he taken himself to be in that supereminency as should make him Head of the Church (yea such an Head, as should be the original unto a succession of Heads unto the end of the world) not only without arrogance he might have inserted it into his style, but also without wrong to posterity he could not have omitted so to do: even by the same discretion wherewith S. Paul does more often term himself an Apostle, than any of the Twelve used to do; because else his Apostleship might have been doubted of: so there being doubt (at least) of Peter's being such an head, had it not far more concerned him every where (at least once in his life) to have prefixed his title? Leu. 22.24. yea when there was a strife amongst the Apostles who should be the chief; was it not then high time for Peter to advance himself? or had our Saviour ever meant any such principality unto Peter, and that of such perpetual necessity, would he have omitted so fair an occasion, to establish a matter of that moment, which both with a word he might have done; and also when the time was, either then or never (in a manner) to be done, his departure and death being so instant? yea, would he so on the contrary have generally forbidden them the use of any Authority, when he told them that though the Kings of the Nations did exercise authority, yet with them it should not be so? For, as for those which expound those words (with you it shall not be so) to restrain the Disciples only from ruling so tyrannically, or so unjustly as the heathen; they therein make our Saviour's words to be nothing to the Disciples question: for they might have answered again, that there strife was not who should rule tyrannically or unjustly, but only who should be chief; whereas some one, or diverse of them might be chief, and yet not only no Tyrants, but not so much as lawful Governors. But to conclude; for as much as we can find no necessity for the acknowledging such supereminency of Peter's Spiritual gifts; nor (were that granted) any step to Authority thereupon; nor that the Kings and Governors in Peter's time did loose there Sovereignty over their Christian Subjects; it cannot therefore be, that Peter was universally the Head of all Christians in his time: and so the second Link of the main Chain proves of no force. The next is this: Only the Successors of Peter must be these universal Heads in their times: whereunto we answer; first, that the Founder of the Church, jesus Christ, did never ordain that any Principality, gifts, or capacities whatsoever should be conveyed to any of his members by succession: Secondly, that he never disabled or excepted against any Line, Tribe, Nation, Language, or Continent whatsoever, from taking as high place in his Church, as his Church afforded: Thirdly, when his will was in the time of the Old Law, to have the Priesthood go by Succession; He did both specify the Line wherein it should pass, namely the Line of Aaron; Num. 17. (confirming also the same by the miraculous budding of Aaron's Rod) and also expressly set down all the rites and ceremonies, which should be stricty observed at every several consecration; yea, the very garments wherewith every Successor at his anointing, Exo. 29.29. should be invested, were determined. Since therefore in the new Law, no such Line or Tribe is mentioned, no rites appointed, no garments or manner of consecration enjoined; it must be a forcible argument to conclude that in the new Law no such Succession was ever intended; for that the new Law being made, not unto one People, but unto all people, not for a time but for ever; had much more needed specifications of persons, places, ceremonies and circumstances then that which was but for one particular People and in continual expectation to vanish away. Fourthly, when in process of time the Church shall attain unto such an amplitude, as shall reach unto all the corners of the Earth; If none must then be head thereof but the Successor of Peter, it must follow that Peter's Successor shall be intolerably surcharged: For either he must have more gifts than Peter had, or no more; if more, then is he more than Peter's Successor. But if no more; there is no equity nor proportion in it, that he whose charge is a thousand fold greater than Peter's, yet shall have no greater measure of gifts to discharge it then Peter had. Finally, for as much as the Lord hath told us, that many shall come from the East, and from the West, and sit with Abraham Isaac and jacob, and the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out; Mat. 12. ult. as also, that whosoever heareth his Word and keepeth it, the same is his Brother, and Sister, and Mother: and that it should not profit the jews for that they had Abraham to their Father: He telling us also in the Old Testament by his Prophet, that an ungodly Son should far never the better for his godly Father, Ezch. 18. nor a godly Son any thing the worse for his ungodly Father: the course also of the times declaring unto us, how holy Kings had unholy Sons to succeed them: and on the contrary; as good King jotham having a wicked Son Ahaz for his Successor, and he a good Son Hezechia for his Successor; and he a wicked Son Manasses for his Successor, and he a good grandchild josiah for his Successor; and he a wicked Son jehoahaz for his Successor: It may sufficiently resolve a Christian mind how far it is from the purpose of God, that his gifts and graces should go by succession. For though often times a good and godly Father had a good and godly Son to succeed him, yet was not that by virtue of Succession, but by virtue of God's grace immediately directing the Son, as well as the Father: even as to day may be as fair a day as yesterday, and yet not because it succeeds yesterday, but because the Sun shines as immediately upon it, as it did upon yesterday. Finally, (for a conclusion) whosoever challengeth Supremacy in the Church by virtue of Succession, does plead no less than flat contradiction: For whosoever is Supreme Head of the Church, must be immediate unto God himself; But whosoever claimeth any thing by virtue of Succession, does of necessity imply, that there is a person betwixt him and the Lord; namely his predecessor from whom his virtue is derived. The next Link of the Chain is this: that Only the Bishops of Rome were the Successors of Peter in their times. Whereunto we answer; First, that no divine record does avouch so much, or so much as mention any by the name of Bishop of Rome: and therefore the knowledge of any rites concerning that Sea, can not be material unto a point of faith. Secondly, as it is not certainly agreed upon, who that Bishop was which immediately Succeded Peter, (some affirming Livius, some Clemens, and some Clitus to be the man) so can there be no cause shown, why some Bishop of Rome must needs be he. For first, if holiness of life were sufficient to make a Successor; so every Christian might be Peter's successor as well as any Bishop of Rome. Secondly, if besides holiness of life there must also concur soundness of Doctrine; yet so also any Pastor may as well be his successor. Or if yet further such a quantity of charge as Peter had, be requisite unto the constitution of his Successor; yet so also every ordinary Diocesan is able to be his successor. Or if yet further, the four fold qualifications Apostolical, namely Immediate calling, Generality of commission, Infallibility of judgement, and Universality of Languages must concur to make such a Successor: yet, as the first Bishops of Rome are no where avouched to be thus qualified more than others, if so much; especially if they knew no Language but the Latin, and came to their places by Election, which is no immediate Calling; So neither will such qualification make a Successor unto Peter more peculiar, then unto the rest of the Apostles unto whom such fourfold qualification was common: wherein then shall consist the marrow and quiddity which makes the Roman Bishops the peculiar Successors of Peter? For, should it be supposed that some peculiar imposition of hands did pass from Peter upon the first Bishop of Rome (wherewith the Holy Ghost was given in the time of the Apostles) or some portion of Peter's spirit was given to that first Bishop (as the spirit of Moses was unto the seventy) or that Peter's garments were put upon him (as the garments of Aaron were upon his Successors) or some such like Rite of conveyance; Num. 11: 15 yet for as much as those kind of ceremonies, Exod. 20.26. when they were used had no virtue in themselves but were divised by the wisdom of God, for the shadowing and concealing his own miraculous and immediate operations (as our Saviour and the Apostles used Spittle, and Clay, and Hemmes of garments, Napkins, Partlets, & Shadows) the intitling any Bishop of Rome unto Peter's virtue, spirit, or privilege, by means of any such outward passage which hath no divine record to specify it, is no less presumptuous than superstitious and ridiculous. Finally concerning their argument from Peter's being the first Bishop of Rome (their cardinal argument in this point) that therefore only the Bishops of Rome are his Local, and so consequently his most proper Successors: we answer; that neither is local succession of force to attain to the virtue of the predecessor; there being no kind of place, whether natural, civil, or mystical, but which is capable even of contrarieties; even the Soul of man (the purest vessel and continent that is) being a receptacle of Sin as well as grace, and the Temple of God being destinated for the Seat of Antichrist as well as for jesus Christ. Thes. 2.4. Nor again can the Bishops of Rome be proved (at least in any peculiar manner) so much as his Local successors; both for that other Bishops, as namely of jerusalem and Antioch had Peter for their Predecessor (& that even by Scripture inference) as also for that no divine (or approved) writer does avouch, either that Peter ever was the Bishop of Rome, or that he was personally present at Rome. For whereas upon Peter's dating one of his Epistles from Babylon, 1 Pet. 5.13. it is argued that he was then at Rome; for that mystically he might account that City Babylon, yet considering how there were three Local Babylon's, namely in Syria, Caldea, and Egypt; which were far more nearly situate unto Peter's Province than Rome was, there conjecture that Peter meant Rome by Babylon in that Text hath three to one against it. But if conjectures and good probabilities may be allowed to carry any sway in this business, it is easy to produce them abundantly, and that out of Scriptures, that Peter never was (but as every Apostle was) any Bishop of Rome. Galat. 2.7. For first it is apparent that Peter by the special appointment of the Spirit was confined unto them of the Circumcision, whereof Rome was no part: Secondly, it was well nigh twenty or thirty years after our Saviour gave Peter the charge of feeding his Sheep, that Peter abode about jerusalem, Antioch, joppa, and those quarters. Thirdly, Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, does tell them that he always had a special care, Rom. 15.20 not to build on another's foundation; then the which Text, what more fair argument can be framed, that Paul never esteemed the Church of Rome to have any other founder then himself: as also his special Commission over the Gentiles (whereof Rome was the chief City) his large Epistle to the Romans (containing the foundation of the Christian Faith in all the dimensions) his being free borne of the Romans, his appealing to Rome in his persecutions, his abiding there diverse years, and that with favour for prisoner; his inditing most of his Epistles there, and never making mention of Peter in any of them, but always complaining how destitute he was, how all had forsaken him, how all sought their own; how he had none was with him but Luke; how he had none like minded unto Timothy (even when his death was instant) and such like circumstances may infer. Unless it were to be supposed, that after the death of Paul, Peter came out of Asia into Europe, to keep consistory at Rome (and that 25. years by the rule of their own stories) there to begin an universal Church-government (which in his best years he never meddled with) and in that City which he is supposed to esteem Mystical Babylon? To this we may finally add that no writers, living in the time of the first Bishops, do any where avouch that those first Bishops did ever challenge any such Sovereignty, but rather they avouch the contrary. For why does Clement, (who is supposed to be the first Bishop of Rome) in his Epistle to james, Epist. 1. style james, Episcopum Episcoporum regentem Ecclesiam Hebraeorum Hierosolymis & c? Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. why does a Father term Antioch, Caput Orbis? which, in that the Disciples did there first begin to be called Christians; (Act. 11.26.) it might far better be so termed then any other; Concil. constan. 5. Act. 1. a Council also having these words Apostolici throni Antiochenae magnae civitatis. Or why was the Bishop of Alexandria entitled Iudex Orbis? Nyceph. canon. 92. Or why did the Council of Africa forbid appeals ad transmarina Concilia? A Father also affirming non esse congruum— that it is not meet for them that are in Egypt to judge them that are in Thracia: Chrysost. ad Inno. or why did the Council of Carthage forbid that any should be called the highest Bishop? or why does a Pope of late times affirm that until the Council of Nyce, Aeneas Sylu. there was but parvus respectus ad Romanos Episcopos? In which Council also (if he meant Nyceum primum) why was it decreed (An. Coun. Nic. 1 Can. 6. Dom. 323.) ut honor cuique suus servetur Ecclesiae? wherein also it is expressly provided that the Bishop of jerusalem should have his ancient honour: Can. 7. and why in the primitive Counsels had the Roman Bishops sometime the fourth place, Sozomen. Hist trip. 2.1. sometime the fifth place, and sometime the sixth assigned them? yea finally, why did Gregory (himself a Bishop and Pope of Rome) living about 500 Greg. 1. Lib. 4. epist. 32. years after Peter, notwithstanding avouch, that none of his Predecessors did ever take upon him to use the ungodly name of Episcopus universalis? yea & so deeply to challenge the Patriarch of Constantinople for assuming it, as that he termed him therein, the forerunner of Antichrist: every where not sparing in his Epistles to brand that title with all the reproaches and execrations he could devose; calling it tiphuum superbiae vocabulum temerarium, pompaticum, scelestum, superstitiosum, profanum, nomen erroris, nomen singularitatis, nomen vanitatis, nomen hypocrysios, nomen blasphemiae. Surely (a little by the way Reader let me speak it) If Gregory so thought him to be defied which would be called Episcopus universalis, what would he have thought of that person who ordinarily advanceth himself in these manner of titles, properties, and conditions: 1. Concil. Lat sub. Leon. 10.2. Hostiensis. 1. In Papa est omnis potestas, supra omnes potestates tam coeli quam terrae. 2. Papa et Christus faciunt unum tribunal. 3. 3. Ius Canon. S. 16.1. q. in gl. 4. Fran. Zabarel: Papa potest dispensare contra ius divinum. 4. Persuaserunt Pontificibus quòd omnia possent, et sic quòd facerent quicquid liberet, etiam illicita et quod sint plùs quam Deus. 5. Extrav. joh. 22. in glos. 5. Credere dominum nostrum Deum Papam non potuisse prout statuit, hereticum esse censetur. 6. Camotensis. 6. Papa praecipit Angelis, et habet potestatem in mortuos. 7. 7. Clem. in proem. in glos. 8. Durand. l. 2.9. Bonif. 8. de maiorat. et ob. Nec Deus es nec homo, quasi neuter es inter utrumque. 8. Hic est ille Melchisedeck, hic est caput omnium pontificum, de cuius plenitudine omnes accipiunt. 9 Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus, omnino esse de necessitate salutis omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici. 10. Cornel. episc. in orat. ad. Synod in conc. Tried. 11. Step. Episcop. Petracens. 12. Host: de sentent. excom. 13. Sylu. prior; contr. Luth. 14. Felinus extrav de constitut. Stat. con. Papa lux venit in mundum sed dilexerunt tenebras magis quam lucem. 11. Tibi data est omnis potestas tam in coelo quam in terra. 12. Papa potest omnia quae Christus potest. 13. Authoritate Scripturae licet non innotuere nobis indulgentiae, at Authoritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanorumque Pontificum quae maior est. 14. Nedum circa Coelestia, Terrestria et Infernalia Papa gerit vicariatum Christi, sed etiam supra Angelos bonos et malos. 15. 15 In Conc. Lat. dictum ad pap. jul. 16. Stella clericorum serm. 111. Tu es omnia et supra omnia. 16. Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui;— qui creavit vos absque vobis, creature a vobis mediantibus vobis. And if even a Priest can create his Creator; what then can he not do which makes that Bishop who makes that Priest that so makes his Maker? O fervent Gregory that thou wert but so long awake as to hear these manaer of voices of thy Successors! for if thy zeal grew so hot against one for being termed Episcopus universalis; how would it burn up those, who with their Babylonian Tops have surmounted even Lucifer himself? For Lucifer's only sickness being this because he was not (sicut altissimus) peer with the highest. Esay. 14.13 These most glorious birds of his, first making all mankind their footstool, have found the Highest to be their inferior, yea their very creature: and all this for the fulfilling that Scripture. He shall exalt himself above all that is called God. 2 Thes. 2.4. The fifth Link of the Chain is this: Only the Popes of Rome were the Successors of those Bishops. Whereunto we answer; that for as much as the Popes did differ from the Bishops, both in name (the word Papa not being known amongst the ancient Latins or those Bishops) and also in the form of Election, (the most substantial difference that States can have) and thirdly in the quality of the persons both electing and to be elected; only Cardinals (a College unknown until of late) being both electores and eligibiles; and finally in the quantity and specialty of their charge; it must of necessity follow, that those Popes were of a diverse kind and original from those Bishops, and so consequently more or less than Successors unto those Bishops, and so finally more or less than Heads of the Church. The last Link of the Chain is this: Only He which now possesseth the Roman Papacy is the Successor of those Popes. Whereunto we answer; first, that is not only void of divine proof, but also that it is uncapable thereof: namely because it is grounded upon matters of fact which happened long since the time when those proofs had their last period. Secondly, as it is uncapable of divine proof, so also is it uncapable of the better kind of humane proof; namely that kind of proof which is by operation of judgement; matters of fact having only Sense and eyewitness to bear them out. Thirdly, whereas other matters of fact are ordinarily proved with two or three witnesses at the most; this proposition must have no less less than two or three hundred; every several Successor (whereof there have been above an hundred) needing no less than two witnesses (a Register being a double witness) to avouch the canonical validity of his choice. To these exceptions we might add how sundry times and ways the Succession from the first Pope to the now present, hath been interrupted. As first, for that the Papacy diverse times by the space of an whole year, and sometimes seven years hath been unsupplyed; secondly, that diverse times again, (no less than thirty several times) there have been two or three Popes at once: thirdly, for that diverse times, the Successor hath contraryed, the Predecessor, and that so mortally, as that the dead corpse of the Predecessor hath capitally been proceeded against. Fourthly, for that diverse have been elected and installed incompetently, indirectly, fraudulently, & violently; in which cases the so elected are by the Local Decrees pronounced Apostatical, Decret. 78. Siquis. and not Apostolical. Fiftly, for that diverse have supplied the place which in their lives were most vile, Licentious, Monstrous, Homicidious, Incestuous, schismatical, Heretical, Magical, and Diabolical: in so much as a Writer of their own Nation hath not spared to say that the goodness of a Pope is commended when it exceeds not the wickedness of other men. Guiceardi. Lib. 16. And finally for that their doctrine hath continually been protested against, especially this last hundred years and that maugre all kind of torturings, murthering, and massacrings that could be devised. These kind of allegations though we might insist upon, against the tenor of this pretended Succession; yet because it cannot be done, but by the aid of humane writers, which for that they be subject both to error & falsifications, when we have done never so much it will not be of force to either satisfy or convince the conscience, which is the only thing we aim at. To say therefore no more than we mean to make the conscience a judge of, and yet as much as conditionally (particulars not being capable of any other but conditional demonstrations) shall fasten upon the Conscience; thus we pronounce; that if at any time since first the Papacy began, any of the Popes did ever enjoin upon Capital penalty blasphemous or Idolatrus Doctrine; or (to make our instance more special) if they did ever at any time capitally enjoin either the worshipping of any kind of Image, or the bowing down thereto; or that men should attribute more reverence unto any kind of Image (whether of God or man, Christ or his Cross so supposed to be) then unto the meanest member of Christ upon the face of the earth (yea the vilest man that is, having a deeper Character and impression of God, than the colour, carvings, or works of any mortal man whatsoever): or finally, if ever they did capitally enjoin, that men should esteem, that to be the very true and proper person or manhood of Christ, which before the speaking afew words they confess was no better than Baker's bread. In any of these cases we pronounce and challenge their Succession to be extinguished & as utterly dead as ever Corpse was when the soul was departed. And that every such Successor was no better the Successor of Peter, than darkness is the Successor of the light, death the Successor of life, and Antichrist the Successor of jesus Christ. But admit none of these Doctrines were ever taught in that Chair from the first to the last, (which that is might be true, no doubt all that ever writ or reported to the contrary would gladly be found liars) yet will not the main conclusion follow thereupon, upon, unless all the former Links of the Chain be firm and inviolable: which if (Christian Reader) you find far otherwise; then judge how it concerns you to beware how you venture the weight of your salvation thereupon: lest as the people of Israel leaning on the Staff of Egypt did find it to be but Reed; so you bearing yourself upon this Chain, do in the end, when it is too late, find it to be made of Rushes: and while out of an hope to be thereby haled up to Heaven, you suffer yourself to be hoisted out of that protection which God hath lent you upon earth, you fall in the midway without recovery. Which judgement, God of his goodness keep you and me from: and so Christian Reader commending these my pains unto your service in the Lord: in him I leave you. FINIS.