AS farr forth as vni­uersall Suprema­cy is supposed to descend vnto him which now pos­sesseth the Roman Papacy, by vertue of this Chayne-argu­ment.

1 The Church militant must alwaies haue some praticular per­son for the vniuersall Head there­of.

2 The Apostle Saint Peter [Page 4] in his time, was that particular person.

3 Only the Successors of Peter must be the like in their times.

4 Onely 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 hee which now posses­seth the Roman Papacy, is the Successor of those Popes.

Ergo, Hee and only Hee, which now possesseth the Romane Papacy, is at this day vniuersal Head of the Church militant.

So farre forth wee propound vnto the world, this answer fol­lowing.

Concerning therefore the first linke of the chaine, (and so to the rest in order) our protestation against it is this: [Page 3] that neither does any Scripture imply, nor strength of ar­gument inforce, nor any writer for the space of fiue thousand yeeres from the beginning of the world, determine, that the Church militant must all­wayes haue some one particular person for the vniuersall Head thereof. For first concerning Scriptures; howsoeuer some particular text doe speake won­derous eminently of some particular persons; as amongst others these following; Psalme [...] I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheritance &c. Esay. [...]. He shall iudge amongst the nations &c. Esay. 49. Kings shall be thy noursing fathers &c. Psal 45. I will make thy name to be remembred &c. Psal: 5. Lord what is man that thou art so mindfull of him &c. Esay. 45.13. He shall build my City &c. Psal 90.1 [...]. He will giue [Page 4] his Angels charge ouer thee &c. Psal. 90.13. Thou shalt tread vpon the Lyon and the Dragon &c. and the like we answer: that from the time that any Scripture was first giuen, vntill the last period thereof, and for fiue hundred yeeres after, (not to say a thou­sand) these kinde of texts were neuer expounded, but eyther of the Messias himselfe (as the two first quoted:) or of his Spouse the Church (as the third and fourth:) or of the condition of mankinde in gene­rall (as the fift and sixt:) or of euery godly man in particular (as the two last:) but neuer of the pretended vniuersall Head. Secondly concerning strength of argument, that neither it can soe inforce, we proue; Be­cause there cannot be imagi­ned any benefit (vse and bene­fit [Page 5] carrying all the moment in morall necessities) which may redownd to the church by meanes of such vniuersall Head: but such as may as well and farr better redownd there vnto, by the meanes of speciall and seue­rall heads according as the se­uerall Continents, languages, and quarters of the earth, by the Diuine prouidence are distri­buted. For though their may seeme to ensue great hope of v­niuersall Peace and Vnity, whē all the strings of gouernment shall thus be setled in one onely hand; yet such peace as is at­teined onely by the extinguish­ment of plurall excellency, will proue little better then Anar­chy, or Pedancy, and such as ignorant persons,wisd. 14.22. yea the very brute beasts are capable of. For they hauing all their wit [Page 6] confined vnto one onely head (the head of their keeper,) doe by that meanes the more quiet­ly goe in and out vnto ther pa­sture: But as it is not good for man to bee alone, so neyther is it good for the Church to be so all-one as that one parson Cow-heard-like, may rule in all alone: for that beside peace and vnity there is requisite also difference and variety vnto the perfection of Christian Socie­ty:Arist. pol. 2.2. the very light of nature teaching vs that too much vni­ty dissolues a city (as vnisons drowne harmony) and makes it degenerate into a family; much more, such a degree of vnity as shall reduce all Cityes as it were into one family vnder one pater patriae, So farr there­fore may it be that this vniuer­sall Supremacy should produce [Page 7] any desirable peace and vnity, as that more lykely an vniuer­sall dullnesse and Lethargy would insue thereof; and that as well in the pretended head himselfe, as in the body. For what condition of life can bee imagined, more tedious, vn­couth and vncomfortable, then that which this vniuersall head must continually abide in, when there shall not be found vpon earth any peere or consort, or helper for him like himselfe! whereas the very Dei­tie, which notwithstanding so infinitly excells for Simplici­ty and vnity does entertaine plurality and Society; witnesse the Trinity: as also the Kings vpon earth are not without their brother-kings, (some el­der and some younger) to consort with-all. Yea besides [Page 16] this desolation and solitude, what incumbrancy and serui­tude will ensue therevpon. For first concerning the head him­selfe; how intollerable his bur­then must neede be, who can imagine? For if that renow­ned Moses was so tyred with the leading of only one people, and they of his owne language, into the earthly Canaan: how must he looke to be tyred, vex­ed, and perplexed which shall haue the leading of all people, nations and languages into the heauenly Canaan? he being composed of flesh and bloud (noe doubt) as much as Moses was, and as much subiect vnto mortalitie, casualty, necessity, infirmity and Sinne; yea in­comparably coming short of Moses (vnlesse it be in his owne particular conceit) for all [Page 9] kind of graces and diuine assi­stance: It being expreslly said, that The Lord knew Moses face to face; Deut. 34.7.10. that his like was neuer knowne, that he was the friend of God; that after sixe score yeeres his eye was neuer dim, nor his na­turall force abated; Moses also hauing his brother Aaron to share with him in the maine businesse, and the rulers ouer thousands, hundreds, and fifties, Exod. 18. [...]1 to saue him the labour of infe­riour causes; The Lord also most miraculusly, both raining dayly vnto the people a bread from heauen, and preseruing their clothing from waxing ould,Deut. 8. [...].4▪ therein sauing him the care for their temporal necessa­ryes: & yet not withstanding so groned Moses vnder his burthen as that somtime he brake forth into this wish,Numb. 11.15. that God would [Page 10] rather kill him then continue him in such misery.

And as for the bondage which the Body of the Church must likewise vndergoe, by meanes of this vniuersall Su­preame, who can vtter it? For the members of the Church being dispersed ouer the face of the whole earth; some of them must of necessity be as farre in situation from their head as the very Antipodes; and so by that meanes shall haue no princi­ples of Faith, no determinati­ons of controuersies, and (in e­fect) no executions of Iustice, but such as must bee appeale­able, ane suspendable from, vn­till a person dwelling in the furthest parts of the world be made acquainted therewith▪ and shal haue ratified the same. Yea, (yet further) how scanda­lous [Page 11] must these courses needes be in the eyes of Iewes, and those which are without; and what a stumbling block in their way? for when the Iew shall read in his (and our) Prophets, that vnder the new couenant men shall so abound with know­ledge as that they shall not need (in comparison) Ier. 31.31. &c. to goe to their next neighbour for it, it shall bee so written in their hearts: will hee euer be brought to beleeue, that the Gospell which the Chri­stians imbrace can be that new couenant; or that our Christ can bee that Messias, vnder whome knowledge is vniuer­sally confined (at least for cer­tainty and infallibilitie) vnto the breast of only one particu­lar person? Or can he iustly be argued of obstinacie, if hee re­solues rather still to continue [Page 12] vnder Moses Law, which neuer inioyned him to goe farther then the bounds of Canaan, (which for quantitie exceeded not ours of England) for any kinde of knowledges, senten­ces, resolutions, appeales, or determinations whatsoeuer? And as for the Infidells which are wholy without; can it bee marueiled if they likewise re­solue, rather still to worship the Sunne and Moone in the Fir­mament, which once a day doe supervise them, then this onely Sonne of God; if He hath but one immediate vessell of his grace for all his followers to draw at, and that vnder the locke and key of only one par­ticular person, and he confined vnto one particular Angle of the earth? yea, what course can be imagined, more apt to [Page 13] inforce and disperse contagion, Heresie, & Apostacie, through the whol body of the Church, when the poluting, or peruer­ting of only one particular per­son, shall be the corrupting and infecting of the vniuersall head thereof? yea, finally what temptations or prouocations more forcible toward the e­recting of a second Babell; when all the world shall bee brought to obey onely one man, and consequently to learne onely one Language (perhaps the Latine)Gen. 11 [...] which God himselfe hath branded for the maine cause of attemp­ting the building of the first Babell? These kind of dangers, difficulties, scandalls, bonda­ges, & abasements considered, and put in the ballance against all imaginable conueniences or [Page 14] benefits, which may redound vnto the Church, by meanes of this vniuersall Head; if they shall ouerpoyze: we may ther­vpon cōclude, that no strength of argument can inforce the accepting thereof. Finally, whereas we thirdly protested, that no writer (of what kinde soeuer) for the first fiue thou­sand yeeres (ab initio mundi;) did euer maintaine the necessi­tie of this vniuersall Head; wee take, that to be sufficiently pro­ued vntill instance be made to the contrary▪ and that no kind of authour of reckoning what­soeuer, did at any time so de­termine; this alone may bee proofe sufficient. For that all the possible knowledge which writers can haue, being either from Scripture or from argu­ment (that which comes by [Page 15] reuelatiō being Scripture it self if (as we haue proued) neither of these two originall lights acknowledg it, what good wri­ter can affirme it? much lesse maintaine it for a principle of the faith? especially conside­ring how all the principles of the faith are so euident, as partly both these lights ac­knowledge them, witnesse the decalogue: and partly one of these lights (namely Scripture) does so abundantly acknow­ledge them, as that euer since the Apostles time, they haue beene agreed vpon, witnes the Articles of faith.

How then shall those passe for tolerable writers, which will avouch, not onely for a truth, but also for a principle, that, which neither of these lights giue any lustre vnto? [Page 16] yea and for such a principle, as rather should giue light vnto all other principles, then neede to borow light of any what­soeuer. For it erecting a Head for euery soule vpon paine of damnation to looke vp vnto, and depend vpon; what lesse degree of light can be requisite vnto it then that which may make it cleere enough euen for runners to read it, and the most weake sighted to find it euen as readily as sucklings find the pappe: whereas on the contrary it is not only destitute of such immediate, instinctiue and noone shine light, but also is as vtterly voyd and vncapa­ble of light as darknesse it selfe. Iudge then reader of what validity the first linke of the chayne is; which if it can­not hould; the conclusion [Page 17] must of necessary fall to the ground: this being the con­dition of Soriticall and Chaine▪ arguments that if but one of the propositions faile the con­clusion cannot follow. So, as were this first proposition gran­ted them, yet could it also be nothing for their purpose, vn­lesse euery one following be made good, especially the next, which is this:

2 The Apostle Peter in his time was this vniuersall Head. Against which position, our de­monstration shall be this: The Kings and Gouernors which liued in the time of Peter, had more authoritie ouer their Chri­stians which liued in their dominions, then Peter had: Peter therefore was not vniuersally the Christians Head. That those Kings and Gouernors [Page 18] had such authority more then Peter had; wee proue: because they stood more deepely char­ged from God, to improoue those Christians vnto the glo­ry of God then Peter did. For the only end why God giues authoritie vnto men ouer one another, being this; that Man­kinde may bee the more fully improued vnto his glory; hee by that meanes hauing the ho­nour, not onely of particular persons, but also of Societies, Families, Cities, Countreys and Kingdomes, it must of ne­cessitie follow, that such as are more deepely charged to im­prooue a companie vnto Gods glory, must also haue the grea­ter power and authoritie ouer that company which they so stand charged with. Now that those Kings were more deeply [Page 19] charged so to improue those Christians then Peter was, we thus proue; by they had greater meanes so to doe: euery mans charge being answerable vnto his meanes,Luk. 12. vnto whom much is giuen (as our Sauiour tels vs) there being much of him to bee re­quired; and, the more mighty (as Salomon addes) being to ex­pect the sorer triall. Wisd▪ 6.8. Now that the meanes of these kings were greater then the meanes of Peter, we thus finally declare: first because it was in their po­wer to protect those their Chri­stian Subiects from persecuti­ons, & so to open a doore vnto their preaching; whereas Peter was not able so much as to pro­tect himselfe noe not to saue his owne shoulders from the whipp. Secondly for that it was also in there powers to [Page 20] indow those their Christians with priviledges and Iurisdicti­ons, whereby such as were o­therwise vntractable vnto the gospell might by the meanes of such temporal hopes and feares (which the carnall minded are onely sensible of) be won or prepared therevnto. Thirdly, and principally, because rhey had at their dispose and com­mand (though only in the Lord wee grant, and no otherwise could Peter or any mortall man haue at command) the gifts, abilities, and mysteries of those their Christian Subiects; the Lord expresly charging euery soule (amongst them) to bee sub­iect vnto the higher powers; and (euen out of Peters owne mouth)Rom. 1 [...].1 1 Pet. [...].13. that they should submit themselues vnto euery ordinance of man, whether vnto the King [Page 21] as the Supreame, &c. So as though those Kings were not in their owne persons indewed with such gifts and graces as were necessary vnto Christian gouernment, at least not so a­bundantly indued as Peter; yet as long as they had the dispose, and authoritie ouer such per­sons as were so indued; it was as well in effect as if they had been actually so indued them­selues; and of the two, the bet­ter by the Phylosophers rule,Arist. depor [...]. an. 4 10. who iudged mans condition in being borne naked, to be there­in rather better then worse then the Beasts; for that man might by that meanes turne his (naked) hand into a Speare, a Spade, a Sword, a Scepter, a Staffe, a Pen, or what hee list; and shift his garments when he list: whereas the beast hath no [Page 22] shift but must alwayes sleepe in his cloathes and shooes, and with his weapons about him of necessity. The meanes there­fore which those Kings had for the improouing of those Chri­stians vnto the propagation (yea plantation) of the Gospel, must be acknowledged to bee farre greater then the meanes of Peter, and so consequently there charge to be greater. For though it is easily granted that those Heathen Kings did little regard or feele any such charge▪ but rather abused and hated the meanes thereof; yet is not that materiall; our question being, not what there feeling or practice was, but what their duty and charge was: which if it was greater then Peters, then also by the proportion of com­mon Iustice, their authoritie [Page 23] also must bee greater. And so finally if their Authoritie ouer those Christians was greater then Peters; Peter could not be their Head (and so not vniuer­sally the Christians Head) vn­lesse it should be supposed, ei­ther that Peter was a subordi­nate head (which is indeede no head but a subiect) or that those Christians were vnder two seuerall and vndependant heads, which both the law of Nature, and also the law of Grace abhors: it being as well a prouerbe as a text,Math. 6. that no man canserue two Masters. For whereas it vse to bee pleaded that though those Kings had a Soueraignty ouer those Chri­stians in Temporall Affaires, yet might Peter haue it in mat­ters Spirituall: Such distincti­on does deale no better with [Page 24] the Subiect, then that 1 Kings 3.26. false Mother did, which was con­tent that the Infant should bee diuided: the thus diuiding Soueraignetie being not only a cleauing of the Head▪ but also a renting of the subiect in twaine. For admitte that hee which hath Supremacy in Spi­ritualls, should haue neuer so little command, were it but of the least finger of the hand, or the least digit of the foote, yet might hee by meanes of it, either draw the seruice of the whole body, or so crampe and torment the whole body, as that he which should haue the command of all the rest, should haue no ioy, nor seruice there­of: much more then if he hath so great a share as the significa­tion of Spirituals may be ex­tēded vnto; & that not only in [Page 25] lawfull sense, but also in a pro­per and necessary sense: there being no gift, indowment or capacitie in man, but which both may and also ought to bee an instrument of the Spirit, (then the which what can bee more properly called Spiritu­all) wee being bound to serue the Lord, not only with heart and soule, but with all our might;1 Cor. 10.13. euen our very eating and drinking (the most com­mon act that is) being charged to intend the glory of God; which not only is a Spirituall end, but also the end of all Spi­ritualls whatsoeuer.

If Peter therefore must haue any Supreamacy at all (especi­ally in spiritualls) he must of necessity haue all: Souerainty (like punctum or vnitas Mathe­matica) being vndiuidable. For [Page 26] though Souerainty may be sea­ted in diuers persons, as namely in a State (as it is seated in but one in a Monarchy) yet must the Authority in euery man­date goe together; as likewise euery person must obey it, not at halues, but with his whole man; and Eccles. 9.10. whatsoeuer thine hand shall find to doe thou must doe it with all thy power. This then being beaten out for a ground, that Peter either must haue all the Soueraigntie or none; come wee vp cheerely (gentle Reader) close to the point, and see what euidence can be brought for Peters abso­lute and sole Supremacie. And (not to say what is aleadged for this purpose but to say more then so) all that can be aleadged must tend to the making good this Argument. Hee which in [Page 27] his time surpassed all men for Spirituall gifts and holinesse, good reason hee should ouer­rule. But Peter so surpassed all men in his time: Peter there­fore must bee the supreame. Wherevnto we answer; that neither of the grounds are found. For as we acknowledge no cause why Peters gifts should bee esteemed of a more infallible and diuine element then 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 spiritu­all a man is, the more he should be possessed with Authoritie. For as the wife oftentimes may be more holy then the Hus­band, and excell him in vertue, both for wisedome, gouern­ment, sobriety; yea euen for [Page 28] courage and bodily strength, (especially in his sicknesse and decrepite age) and yet stands charged in conscience to giue him the preheminence: So may a Subiect excell his Prince for personall vertues and spiri­tuall mysteries, and yet still re­maine charged to be a Subiect; the maine reason hereof being this; for that the vertues of a Subiect are habitually in his Prince, and so more properly his Princes then his owne; as the vertues of the Wife are more her Husbands then her owne;1 Cor. 11.7.9. the Woman being made for the Man, and being the glory of the Man: and so a dignitie and reputation vnto the man. When therefore it is vrged for the preheminence of the spi­rituall men (by Spirituall men whether we meane euery mem­ber [Page 29] of Christ, or only the Mi­nisters of Christ it is not materi­all) that in Scripture they bee vsually tearmed the Shepheards and Pastors of the Church, the Lights of the World, &c. we answer, that our question is not concerning the excellency, but concerning the dependancie of their gifts; wee maintayning that the pastorall skill is subor­dinate vnto that power which layes out the Pastures, and as­signeth the Foulds, and keepes off the Wolues; which being the proper offices of Kings and Gouernors, they are to be reputed (as in writers both Diuine & Humane they be or­dinarily tearmed) the principall Shepheards. Though truly and properly the Lord only is the Shepheard, in respect of whom all Kings, Gouernors, and [Page 30] Pastors whatsoeuer are but as sheepe before Him; though of his grace and for his purposes, He will haue them amongst men reputed as Shepheards; some of them to bee as his Pa­ges, and some only as Bell-weathers; whereof these haue power to leade the flocks, so far as they haue eares to heare, and list to follow the tingling of their Bell: and the Pages, to leade and driue them whether they haue list or noe. So like­wise when Spirituall men are called Lights; though the Scrip­ture expounds them to bee but Candlesticks of such Lights, Reuel. 1. &. 2. yet may they bee inferiour vnto those which follow their light, as much as the Lantherne-bearer is inferiour vnto his fol­lowing Master; or as the vn­derstanding is inferiour to the [Page 31] Will; whereunto though it be a guide, yet is it also a Subiect; the Will hauing power to in force both obiects and princi­ples vppon it.Axioma Theolog. As therefore the Moone and not the Sunne, is said to rule the Night, though all the light where­with the Moone rules, shee re­ceiues of the Sunne: So hee which possesseth the Throne must be esteemed the ruler of the people, and not hee which is possessor of the Light; though it must bee confessed that all good rule is by the di­rection of the light. And as the Sunne beeing beneath the Moone, and vnder the Earth, can doe nothing in the time of the night, but so farre foorth as it can cast his beames into the lappe and capacitie of the Moone, which by vertue of [Page 32] her conspicuous eminency hath onely the power to dis­perse light vnto all that are vn­der it: so the Spirituall man during his being (as it were vnder the earth) in an earthen vessell, and in a priuate conditi­on▪ can doe nothing with au­thority, but in the vertue and power of him that sits in the Throne: the maine reason heereof being this; for that the rude and ignorant (for whose only ordering and gouernment Authority is imparted vnto men) can incomparably better deserne who is a possessour of the Throne, then who is a pos­sessor of the Spirit▪ and so by that meanes more certainely know whom they are to obey. For as in Wedlocke, had the Lord ordained that the holier or the wiser of the two should [Page 33] be the Head, there must needs insue continuall discord and vncertainty in the Family, who should bee the Head: the woman often times being (see­ming at least) the holier, wiser &c. whereas hee expresly de­termining that the man shall be Head (which with the least turne of the eye is discerned) so all controuersie is ended, and the weakest of the Family ea­sily resolued, 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 spirituall should bee head, there must needs haue insued the like vn­certainty and discord who hee should be: hee that is holy or spirituall to day, being apt to be otherwise (at least in appea­rance) [Page 34] to morrow; and such as be most vnholy, being as apt to carry an appearance of the ho­liest; whereas he expresly set­ting it downe, that hee which weares the Crowne, or sits in the Throne, or beares the the Sword should be Head, all such strife is soone at at end; the weakest that is being able with ease to discerne who such per­sons bee. For, though often­times Vsurpers may get posessi­on of the Crowne or the Sword; yet is that nothing so hard to discerne, as who is a false Professor of the Spirit: Time, place, person, discent, records, and titles (which car­nall men can iudge of, and lay together) being of sufficient force to detect who is an Vsur­per: all which though they bee but circumstances, yet are they [Page 35] such, as a man can haue no bet­ter for the discerning his owne father, whom notwithstanding he stands charged in consci­ence to obey. Better therefore that authority bee tyed to the Crown, then to the Spirit; and that not only in regard of mans necessities, but also more espe­cially for the effecting the Lords owne purposes; who by this meanes can correct or scourge a whole Nation, and yet smite onely one particular person: namely by suffering their Prince or Head to becom a Tyrant or a Babe: whereup­on (as himselfe hath taught vs) a woe must befall the whole Land: Esay. 3.4. whereas were the Crowne continually kept and possessed by the Spirit, such a kind of Rod should finde no place. For as concerning those which [Page 36] thinke there is no necessity for this consequence, because in case a Babe or a Tyrant supplies the Throne, the whole Nation neede not be obnoxious vnto any smart thereby, for that it is thought lawfull, yea necessarie 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, vniust, and ri­diculous before men. First, most impious it is; because it is the common Ordinance of God that wee should obey and ho­nour Princes; yea that wee should honour our particular Fathers, much more the Fa­thers of the whole Country: so farre must wee bee from a­basing them, especially in case of their imbecillity. How im­pious [Page 37] then must they needs be, which will handle their Prin­ces no better then caityfes, and most desperate members? Se­condly, most presumptuous it is, both for that it puts him by, whom the Lord will haue raigne, namely that Babe, or that Tyrant for the purpose a­foresaid; and also for that it does interpose a Iudgement seate betwixt the Lord, and him whom the Lord will haue his most immediate, his very next, his owne Annointed. And as for the monstrousnesse of it, it appeares in this: both for that it supposeth a power in the Body aboue the Head; namely that power which must cut the Head off; in the roome of which head, in case another head should grow vp; yet must it still bee vnder that power of [Page 38] the Body; which is most pre­posterous; and also (in case no such head growes vp) for that either the Body must remaine 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 infe­riour members which cannot discerne a Head from a Hand or a Foote, but only by the outward shape and figure ther­of, 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 doe it that respect and obedience which to the Head is due; and then when at length after many admonitions they haue learned to see the power of an Head vnder the [Page 39] shape of an hand; yet withall when they shall also learne how that hand came there; namely by cutting off the vnsound or foolish Head: what remaines but that they thinke it necessa­ry, (at least lawfull) for them to obserue whether that Hand be found, or whether some fit of a Chyragra be not growing vpon it: which if they finde; what else but that some other member be thought of for the place? and then who perhaps so likely to put forward as the Foote? which if it attaines to the place of the Head; as it must needs be a miserable shame and confusion to the Domesticke members, so how can it bee o­therwise then a most horrible scorne vnto the forraigne ene­mies? and as good sport as the walking of men with their [Page 40] heeles vpwards, is to idle be­holders. Yea what more vniust euen in the eies of common Sense, then that the Master-builder should bee at this passe, either to giue account of the soundnesse of his worke vnto those which are beneath him; or else to be at their mercie to haue the Stage pulled from vn­der him? But, Christian Rea­der, I feare mee you thinke I haue committed an excursion; and yet I pray suffer mee to an­swer one Obiection more, which is thought to be of De­monstratiue force for the In­titling the Spirituall man to the Throne before any: and it is this. The first Adam vpon his fall did forfeit all the domini- and titles which the Lord vp­on his Creation had set him in: Such therefore as haue no [Page 41] other birth but from the first Adam, can haue no title to do­minions or authorities what­soeuer: and therefore they which are borne of the second Adam (vnto whom the first Adams inheritance must lapse vnto) must be the only true Heires thereof; and conse­quently as men are more or lesse borne of the second Adam (that is, as they are more or lesse Spirituall) they shall more or lesse haue titles to Kingdomes, Lordships, properties or capa­cities whatsoeuer, and no o­therwise. Wherevnto wee an­swer; first, that though Adam vpon his fall did loose the sweetnesse of his dominions (the curse of God inuading it) yet does it not follow but that he might still retaine the state and title thereof; euen as a rich [Page 42] man when hee falls into some tormenting desease, and so hath no ioy of all his riches, yet still remaines seazed and possessed of his riches neuerthelesse. Se­condly, the estate and domini­on which God gaue vnto A­dam, though it might be a ioy & dignitie vnto him, yet was it principally to bee taken in the nature of a charge; which charge it was not in Adams power to auoid or forfeit vpon his trespasse and fall, but rather to double and increase it there­upon: a mans voluntary dash­ing his abilities, being no dis­pensation for his duties; negli­gence being of no more force to discharge vs, then voluntary ignorance is to excuse vs. Thirdly, that the Lord did make vnto the first Adam, a ge­nerall grant of vniuersall propriety [Page 43] and dominion, we ex­presly find (Gen. 1.28. &c.) but that hee did reuoke the same we finde not. Paradise indeed, both the heauenly (the fruition of God) and also the earthly (the Garden of Eden) we find expresly that it was taken from him: but wee also finde as ex­presly, that it was giuen him only vpon condition of his o­bedience: whereas the donati­on of vniuersall dominion had no such condition annexed vn­to it. Fourthly, had Adam apprehended that superiority and dominion should vpon his Fall, be conueyed vnto men by the course of Grace, and not by the course of Nature: hee would neuer haue intitled his vngracious first borne vnto all his possessions, as the name Cain signifies, and left nothing for [Page 44] his best-borne, but (the young­er brothers portion) vanitie, as the name Abel signifies. Fiftly, the Lord euery where so esta­blishing the Hethen Princes in their States and Kingdomes; as Pharaoh, Nabuchadnezar, Cyrus, Ahashuerosh, Darius, Caesar, &c. who had no kind of right ther­unto, but by the Law of Nati­ons, which hath his originall only from (consecrated reason) the Law of the first Adam, of whom only they were discen­ded (the second Adam being to them vnknowne;) it may suf­ficiently teach that no reuoca­tion of originall Dominions did follow vpon the fall.

But finally and principally, and in stead of all, may be this; for that the second Adam and his line (vnto whom only such supposed forfeiture was to ex­tend) [Page 45] did neuer make the least title or claime thereunto: ei­ther when he was first promi­sed, or when he was first made manifest in the flesh. For as con­cerning the time when hee was first promised, so farre was hee then from taking any vantage of the Fall; as that the first mention of him did promise a Succour against our Enemie that gaue the Fall; in these words: The seede of the Woman, shall bruise the Serpents head. Hebr. 11. Likewise his first-borne Abel (who by faith in him offered the the good Sacrifice) was so farre from attayning any superiority by vertue of his being borne of him, as that it proued the only cause of his earthly ruine: his Brother therefore hating him be­cause his works were good;1 Ioh. 3.12. and his works (wee know) being [Page 46] therefore only good, because he was borne of him. So also the Patriarkes and holy men in their times; did they not al­waies account themselues ra­ther loosers then gainers by this second birth? they euery where vndergoing tributes and bon­dages more willingly and more faithfully then any.

And as for the time of the second Adams manifesting himselfe in the flesh; so farre was he then also from claiming any of the first Adams rights, as that vpon all occasions, hee professeth the maine intent of his comming, to be for the re­storing of his losses, euen though it were with the losse of his owne life: euery where styling himselfe no better then The Sonne of Man; which the meanest of Adams Race might [Page 47] assume as well as hee: and fi­nally, as often telling vs that his Kingdome was not of this world; that he came not to be ministred vnto, 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 priuate persons that are may be allowed to doe) least he should seeme to take vpon him the Office of a Iudge, and so leaue a conceit in his followers that some degree of Authority might bee deriued from him: euery where finally prescribing such courses, and aduising all that desired to grow great in him, to exceed only in humili­tie, preferring therefore a child before them all, when they stroue who should be the greatest: Mat. 20.25. and telling them (in effect) that [Page 48] authority and greatnesse was to bee deriued only from the Kings of the Nations.Mat. 28.18. For whereas after his ascention hee tells vs that All power was giuen him both in Heauen and in Earth, His meaning therein is only this; that now all power both in Heauen and Earth should be vnder his humanitie, as before it was vnder his Deity; and that as all men, euen Adam himselfe and all his race were formerly vnder him as he was the Sonne of God: so now they should likewise bee vnder him as hee was the Sonne of man. For the effecting thereof there nee­ded no alteration of States, or new conueyances▪ for that as all other creatures both in Hea­uen and in Earth; whether An­gels, Beasts, Wormes, Plants, Stones, or whatsoeuer; are [Page 49] likewise become subiect vnto this manhood, and yet still re­taine their orders, natures, and properties as before: Angels remaining Angels; Beasts re­maining Beasts; Lyons, Lyons; Stones▪ Stones, &c. so does it no otherwise follow but that man­kind may likewise become sub­iect vnto the manhood of God; and yet all men still to continue in their former properties: Kings, remaining Kings; Prin­ces, Princes; Fathers, Masters, Husbands, Wiues, Subiects, Sonnes, Seruants, in their for­mer condition; and (as the A­postles tell vs) Euery man in the same calling wherin 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 thinke good to be the Father of a new generation by the course [Page 50] of Nature; wherewith to pro­pagate his Church, but made choise of the old Adams issue to new graft vpō. So may we con­ceiue it to be a course most an­swerable thereunto, that when he meanes to adorne and be­spangle his Church with Scep­ters, Crownes and Authorities, He will not make new Crowns or new Scepters, or take away Crownes and Scepters from the old possessors, to adorne his followers withall: but only new graft vpon those old Crownes and Potentates; and so most sweetely bring it to passe, that though hee does not make his followers Kings, yet does hee make Kings his fol­lowers. Which as it is all one for the outward glory and countenance of the Gospell, so it is farre more agreeing with [Page 51] the propertie and profession of the Gospel; namely in winning Kings vnto the grace of God, by gentle, easie, weake, and peaceable meanes; making choice of Sheepe, and not Wolues or Lyons for his Am­bassadors, and that when hee sends to Wolues and Lyons and worse then Tygers: that so those Rebells in the day of visitation when they see how the Lord hath dealt with them, and how in stead of sheepe hee could haue sent wolues and Lyons in their owne kinde, to haue worried and destroyed them; then as ouercome with the coales of fire which his long suffering had cast vpon them, they with all their hearts and soules, present him and his Gospell with their Scepters, Crownes, Dignities, and Pos­sessions: [Page 52] yea they thus breake forth into most vehement and sincere protestations (as our so Christian Soueraigne hath taught them) vnto his Maiestie alone I haue deuoted my Scepter,Remonstr. Anglice. pag. 249.my Sword, my Penne, my whole industry; my whole selfe with all that is mine in whole and in part: I doe it, I doe it, in all humble ac­knowledgement of his vnspeakable fauour, &c. Pag. vlt. to whose seruice as a most humble homager and vassall, I consecrate all the glory, honour, lustre and splendor of my earthly Kingdomes. Wee con­clude then, that neither diuine ordinance, nor Church bene­fit, does inforce or perswade this ground (without which Saint Peter cannot be intitled vnto Soueraignty;) that the more spirituall men are, the more they ought to bee possessors of [Page 53] Authority: which conclusion also were it granted, yet would not Peters Supremacy thereup­on insue, vnlesse it bee also pro­ued, that in Spirituall gifts and graces Peter must of ne­cessity bee acknowledged to surmount all persons: which we grant not. For as concer­ning the Text and collections which vse to bee alleadged for that purpose; as namely that Peter is ordinarily first named when the Apostles are rehear­sed. 2. That our Sauiour three seuerall times gaue him charge to feede his sheepe. 3. That our Sauiour particularly told him that he had prayed for him. 4. That our Sauiour payed the tri­bute for him. 5. Did more or­dinarily discourse with him, then any of the rest. 6. Gaue him a new name. 7. Tearmed him a [Page 54] Rocke, and promised to builde his Church vpon him. 8. Gaue him the Keyes of heauen. 9. And finally, wrought especially by him in the Primitiue Church af­fayres. We thus shortly answer them in order.

1 And first concerning his no­minall priority, we answer, that it is not of force to intitle him vnto any principality; it being not auoydable amōgst the most equals, but that there must bee such kind of precedency; as for example in the Trinity: though neither is Peter euery where first named; both Gal. 2. Iames and Ioh. 1.40 Andrew being sometime na­med before him. 2 2. And as for our Sauiours triple charging him to feed his sheepe: wee an­swere, That it is rather a checke then a grace, to bee often called vpon to doe a dutie: and in that [Page 55] it is said that Peter was sory when it was said vnto him the third time, &c. it may seem that Peter took it no otherwise; as perhaps conceiting such tripling of his charge, to bee in the way of a glance at his triple denial. 3 3. Frō the like consideration of Peters weaknesse (wee answere to the third) might proceed our Saui­ours telling him, that He had praied for him. For no doubt our Sauiours praier was as frequent & effectuall for the rest, though he saw not the like cause to tell them so much. 4 4. And as for our Sauiours paying the tribute for him; we answer, that it may rather argue Peters pouerty and subiection, then any kind of ex­cellency and dominion: the rest also perhaps not being lya­ble to the tribute which was then demanded; either because [Page 56] they were no dwellers at Ca­pernaum, as Peter was; and so it might bee if it were the Empe­rors tribute; or for that they were not the first borne in their Families, of whome onely the other tribute (toward the Tem­ple) was demanded. 5 5. And as for our Sauiours so ordinary discoursing with Peter; wee an­swere, that it is ordinary with natural Fathers, to make choice rather of their little ones to op­pose and discourse withall, then their men growne sonnes; espe­cially when their intent therein is to teach standers by; the most ready answerers rather then the more wary being fittest for such purposes. 6 6. And as for the new naming of Peter; wee answere, that diuers of the rest also had new names giuen thē; as Leui being new-named Mat­thew; [Page 57] Saul, Paul; Iames and Iohn Boanerges; which name being by interpretation the sonnes of thun­der, may farre better resemble persons of Authoritie, then Pe­ters new name of Cephas or Pe­tros; for that a Stone, as those names signifie, is more fit to make a Subiect then a Head, if names should bee regarded. 7 7. Now as for our Sauiours tearming Peter a Rock, and pro­mising to build His Church vp­on him; we answer, that neither doth that Text giue Peter any higher preheminence, for that the rest of the Apostles were styled by higher termes then so; euen no lesse then absolute and seuerall foundations of the Church; the wall of new Ierusa­lem being said (Reuel. 21.14.) to haue twelue foundations, and in them the names of the twelue A­postles: [Page 58] Another Text also (E­phes. 2.20.) making not onely the rest of the Apostles, but also the Prophets as deepe in the foundation as he; when it saith, that the Church was founded vp­on the Prophets and Apostles; in which Text also it being fur­ther added, that Iesus Christ is the Head Corner Stone; If Peter should so be esteemed a Rock, as to bee the Rocke alone, hee should so not onely surmount his fellowes (contrary to those Texts) but also our Sauiour himselfe. 8. Nor againe does our Sauiours giuing Peter the Keyes of heauen, any whit ad­uance Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles, vnto whom these heauenly Keyes, whether the keyes of knowledge, the keyes of binding and loosing, the keyes of remitting and retay­ning, [Page 59] or the Keyes of Dauid (if there be any odds or difference amongst these keyes) were as expressely giuen. For first, as touching the keyes of Know­ledge; those we find, euen the Scribes and Pharisees and com­mon Lawyers not to bee desti­tute of: and as for the keyes of remitting and retaining sinne; those also our Sauiour does plurally giue, when hee sayeth; Whose sinnes yee remit, Ioh. 20.23. they are remitted, &c. though to speake truely and properly, neither Pe­ter, nor any mortall man euer had power to remit sinne, but onely as the Priests in the Old Law had power to cleanse Le­prosie; which was only by pro­nouncing according vnto the Leuiticall Rules,Leuit. 13. who were cleane, and who not; the cogni­zance of Leprosie being confi­ned [Page 60] onely vnto them, and none in the Congregation beeing reputable for cleane, (after pre­sumptions to the contrary) but onely whom they so pronoun­ced. Thirdly, the keyes of bin­ding and loosing (if they must differ from the former) are like­wise found giuen to the rest, when our Sauiour saith, What­soeuer yee binde on earth, shall bee bound in heauen; where the Re­latiue (yee) is thought to extend (in the iudgement of Theophi­lact: in Mat. 18.18. non solum quae solvunt sacerdotes —sed quae et nas—sunt soluta et lig. good Expositors) not onely to the rest of the Apostles, but also (in case there spoken of) to euery member of Christ. Finally, concerning the keyes of David, which (our Sauiour in his glory professing himselfe to be the keeper of) may seeme to haue the preheminence;Reu. 3.7. wee finde long before Peters time to haue [Page 61] been committed vnto the Pro­phet Ieremie (vnder the name of Eliachim) in these words:Esa. 22.22. I will lay the key of Dauid vpon his shoulders; hee shall shut, and none shall open; hee shall open, and none shall shut: Wherein then consists the peculiaritie of Pe­ters Keyes? For though when our Sauiour promised him them, hee tearmed them the Keyes of Heauen; yet for as much as the Keyes of binding, loo­sing, opening, shutting, remit­ting &c. doe concerne no other gates then the gates of Heauen; such nominall explications an­nexed vnto Peters Keyes, can giue no reall Specialty vnto them. Especially considering how the Key of Faith which euery beleeuer must haue as well as Peter, is also the Key of Heauen; yea and such a Key, [Page 62] as without it, none of the o­ther Keyes can, and yet, it, without all the rest, is able, to open Heauen Gates alone. Though truly and properly we must alwaies remember, that he only is able to open the hea­uens, which hath made the hea­uens; His precious blood be­ing the only true Key indeed; and his Word reuealing so much, being the handle of that Key; and the faith of man bee­ing the hand, which by meanes of that handle, His Word, does turne that Key his bloud, vpon the maine boult, sinne; which only hath shut Heauen gates a­gainst the Sonnes of Men. 9 9. Finally concerning Peters agen­cye and imployment in the Church affaires more then o­thers, we answer: that the prin­cipall Agents and Speakers are [Page 63] not alwaies of necessity the principall persons: Aduocates and pleaders, exceeding Iudges and Presidents in such Offices;Exod. 4.16. Act. 14. the High Priest Aaron being as a mouth vnto Moses, though Moses was as God vnto him: and the men of Lystra esteeming Paul to be therefore inferiour vnto Barnabas (as much as Mer­curie was vnto Iupiter) because Paul was the chiefe speaker. Secondly, though wee find Pe­ter in the Acts of the Apostles, to take vp the occasions of Speech very often and abun­dantly; yet may we obserue di­uerse tokens of more eminency in others; especially in Paul, Iohn, and both the Iameses: the one of these being graced with no meaner tearme then the Lords brother;Gal. 1.1 [...]. & the other being named of Paul (and before Pe­ter) [Page 64] amongst those which were ac­counted pillars:Gal. 2. mention also be­ing made of him with more au­thoritie then of any the rest: as when Iames did but say (Act. 15.19.) my sentence is &c. presently without more ado the Text ad­deth (v. 22.) It seemed good vnto the Apostles to send, Act. 21.18. &c. Iames al­so being only named when Paul was dispensed withal for his cō descēding vnto the Iewish rites. And as cōcerning Iohn, we find; first that he is vsually called the Disciple whom Iesus loued; that our Sauiour permitted him to leane on his breast at his last Sup­per:Ioh. 19.26. made him the Son of his owne Mother, & as a gardian vnto her: gaue him the grace to write his Gospell in the diuinest manner; with answerable Canonicall E­pistles: as also made him the im­mediate pen-man of his special [Page 65] Epistles to the seauen Churches: Reu. 2. & finally reuealed vnto him the future estate of the whol Church vnto 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 frō heauen; was seperated by the appointmēt of the holy Ghost; was reckoned amonst the Pro­phets of his time; abounded in vnwritten reuelations, as Iohn did in the written; foretold the immediate blindnes of Elimas (which was answerable vnto Peters like prediction of the death of Ananias) Tooke the care of all the Churches;2 Cor. 11.28. Rom. 15.Labored more thē they all; would not build on an­others foundation; had the largest Prouince, namly ouer al the Gē ­tiles; wrot most canonicall Epi­stles; most magnified his Office; stood most vpon his Authority, [Page 66] affirming that who so despised his Doctrine despised God; commen­ding his owne example,1 Thes. 4. [...] and ci­ting his owne authority (behold I Paul, I say vnto you &c.) and finally rebuking Peter to the face. Whereas cōcerning Peter, as he is not any where noted for spirituall excellency and infalli­bilitie more then others,Galat. 5. [...]. so on the contrary he is more expres­ly touched for infirmities and failes then any. Witnesse both his ouerweaning of his owne strength, and boasting that hee would neuer forsake his Ma­ster, when before the next mor­ning hee denyed him and for­sware him. Witnesse his igno­rance of the maine intent of our Sauiours comming (in disswa­ding him from suffering) where­upon he was called Satan. Wit­nesse his ignorance of the Ca­tholike [Page 67] extention of the Gos­pell; (in refusing to admit the Gentiles thereunto.) And wit­nesse finally his timorousnesse in vsing Christian libertie for feare of angring the Iewes: with other fayles. For though wee reuerence the memory of Saint Peter as a choise vessell of Gods Grace; yet when wee see him so aduanced aboue his fellows, & that only for the exalting his pretended Successours so in­cōparably aboue their fellows no man can iustly bee offended if we note that Peter was left­handed no lesse then his Fel­lowes. But for a finall answer, thus we conclude; that neither: Peter nor Paul, nor Iames nor Iohn, did sway the affaires of the Primatiue Church, but iointly the Twelue together. For both the choosing the new [Page 68] Apostle, the ordaining the sea­uen Deacons▪ the deciding con­trouersies, the disposing Prouin­ces, the sending Barnabas to An­tioch, Peter & Iohn into Samaria, the taking account of Peters go­ing to the Gentiles (notwith­stāding his Diuine warrant therfore) were all the ioynt Acts of the whole Twelue. The decrees finally going forth in no other name but in the name of the Twelue.Act. 15.22. & 16.4. So as cōcerning any so­ueraintie, supremacye, primacy, or superexcellency (of necessity to be granted) in the person of Peter; we may finally conclude; that neither did our Sauiour or­daine it, nor the Apostles ac­knowledg it, or inuest him with it, (as there was no cause why they should, his cōmon infirmi­ties considered) nor did Peter himselfe take it vpon him, but rather exceeded them all in sub­iection; [Page 69] as both his long iourney into Samaria, Act. 8.4. Act. 11.2. when the Twelue sent Iohn & him; his giuing ac­count of his actions when they were (though vniustly) excep­ted against; & his suffring a pub­like rebuke at the hands of one which was none of the Twelue, may testifie; as also his so ex­presse teaching submissiō whe­ther vnto Kings as the Supremes, 1 Pet. 2.13. or vnto gouernors, &c. admoni­shing those of his owne sort, not to carry themselues as Lords ouer Gods heritage, 1 Pet. 5. & neuer in his E­pistles intitling himselfe other­wise thē a Seruant of Iesus Christ, or an elder, or an Apostle at the most. Whereas had hee taken himselfe to bee in that Super­eminencie as should make him Head of the Church (yea such an Head, as should be the origi­nall vnto a succession of Heads [Page 70] vnto the end of the world) not only without arrogance hee might haue inserted it into his style, but also without wrong to posterity he could not haue o­mitted so to doe: euen by the same discretion wherewith S. Paul does more often tearme himselfe an Apostle, then any of the Twelue vsed to doe; be­cause else his Apostleship might haue beene doubted of: so there being doubt (at least) of Peters being such an head, had it not farre more concerned him eue­ry where (at least once in his life) to haue prefixed his title?Leu. 22.24. yea when there was a strife a­mongst the Apostles who shold bee the chiefe; was it not then hie time for Peter to aduance himselfe? or had our Sauiour e­uer meant any such principality vnto Peter, and that of such per­petuall [Page 71] necessity, would hee haue omitted so faire an occasi­on, to stablish a matter of that moment, which both with a word he might haue done; and also when the time was, either then or neuer (in a manner) to bee done, his departure and death being so instant? yea, would hee so on the contrary haue generally forbidden them the vse 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 re­straine the Disciples only from ruling so tyrannically, or so vn­iustly as the heathen; they there­in make our Sauiours words to bee nothing to the Disciples question: for they might haue [Page 72] answered againe, that there strife was not who should rule tyrannically or vniustly, but only who should bee chiefe; whereas some one, or diuers of them might be cheefe, and yet not on­ly no Tyrants, but not so much as lawfull Gouernours. But to conclude; for as much as wee can finde no necessity for the ac­knowledging such Superemi­nencie of Peters Spirituall gifts; nor (were that granted) any step to Authoritie thereupon; nor that the Kings and Gouerners in Peters time did loose there Soueraignty ouer their Chri­stian Subiects; it cannot there­fore be, that Peter was vniuer­sally the Head of all Christians in his time: and so the second Linke of the maine Chaine proues of no force. The next is this:

[Page 73] Only the Successors of Peter must be these vniuersall Heads in their times: whereunto wee an­swer; first, that the Founder of the Church, Iesus Christ, did neuer ordaine that any Princi­pality, gifts, or capacities what­soeuer should bee conueyed to any of his members by succes­sion: Secondly, that hee neuer disabled or excepted against a­ny Line, Tribe, Nation, Lan­guage, or Continent whatsoe­uer, 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 haue the Priesthood goe by Succession; He did both specifie the Line wherein it should passe, namely the Line of Aaron;Num. 17. (confirming also the same by the miraculous bud­ding of Aarons Rod) and also [Page 74] expresly set downe all the rites and ceremonies, which should be stricty obserued at euery se­uerall consecration; yea, the very garments wherwith euery Successor at his annointing,Exo. 29.29. should be inuested, were deter­mined. Since therefore in the new Law, no such Line or Tribe is mentioned, no rites appoin­ted, no garments or manner of consecration inioyned; it must be a forcible argument to con­clude that in the new Law no such Succession was euer inten­ded; for that the new Law be­ing made, not vnto one People, but vnto all people, not for a time but for euer; had much more needed specifications of persons, places, ceremonies and circumstances then that which was but for one particular Peo­ple and in continuall expectati­on [Page 75] to vanish away. Fourthly, when in processe of time the Church shall attaine vnto such an amplitude, as shall reach vn­to all the corners of the Earth; If none must then be head ther­of but the Successour of Peter, it must follow that Peters Suc­cessour shall bee intollerably surcharged: For either he must haue more gifts then Peter had, or no more; if more, then is he more then Peters Successour. But if no more; there is no e­quitie nor proportion in it, that he whose charge is a thousand fold greater then Peters, yet shall haue no greater measure of gifts to discharge it then Pe­ter had. Finally, for as much as the Lord hath told vs, that ma­ny shall come from the East, and from the West, and sit with A­braham Isaac and Iacob, and the [Page 76] children of the Kingdome shall bee cast out;Mat. 12. vlt. as also, that whosoeuer heareth his Word and keepeth it, the same is his Brother, and Sister, and Mother: and that it should not profit the Iewes for that they had Abraham to their Father: Hee telling vs also in the Old Testament by his Prophet, that an vngodly Sonne should fare neuer the better for his godly Fa­ther, Ezch. 18. nor a godly Sonne any thing the worse for his vngodly Father: the course also of the times de­claring vnto vs, how holy Kings had vnholy Sonns to suc­ceede them: and on the contra­ry; as good King Iotham hauing a wicked Sonne Ahaz for his Successour, and he a good Son Hezechia for his Successour; and hee a wicked Son Manasses for his Successour, and hee a good grand-child Iosiah for his [Page 77] Successour; and hee a wicked Sonne Iehoahaz for his Successour: It may sufficiently resolue a Christian mind how farre it is from the purpose of God, that his gifts and graces should goe 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 vertue of Succession, but by vertue of Gods grace immediately directing the Son, as well as the Father: euen as to day may be as faire a day as yesterday, and yet not because it succeeds yesterday, but be­cause the Sunn shines as imme­diately vpon it, as it did vpon yesterday. Finally, (for a con­clusion) whosoeuer challengeth Supremacy in the Church by vertue of Succession, does plead no lesse then flat contradiction: [Page 78] For whosoeuer is Supreame Head of the Church, must bee immediate vnto God himselfe; But whosoeuer claimeth any thing by vertue of Succession, does of necessity imply, that there is a person betwixt him and the Lord; namely his pre­decessor from whom his vertue is deriued.

4 The next Linke of the Chaine is this: that Only the Bishops of Rome were the Succes­sours of Peter in their times. Whereunto we answer; First, that no diuine record does a­uouch 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 bee materiall vnto a point of faith. Secondly, as it is not certainely agreed vpon, who that Bishop [Page 79] was which immediately Suc­ceded Peter, (some affirming Liuius, some Clemens, and some Clitus to bee the man) so can there be no cause shewne, why som Bishop of Rome must needs be he. For first, if holinesse of life were sufficient to make a Successour; so euery Christian might be Peters successor as wel as any Bishop of Rome. Se­condly, if besides holinesse of life there must also concurre soundnesse of Doctrine; yet so also any Pastor may as well be his successour. Or if yet further such a quantitie of charge as Pe­ter had, bee requisite vnto the constitution of his Successour; yet so also euery ordinary Dio­cesan is able to be his successor. Or if yet further, the foure fold qualifications Apostolicall, namely Immediate calling, Gene­ralitie [Page 80] of commission, Infallibility of Iudgement, and Vniuersality of Languages must concurre to make such a Successour: yet, as the first Bishops of Rome are no where avouched to bee thus qualified more then 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 quallification make a Successor vnto Peter more peculiar, then vnto the rest of the Apostles vnto whom such foure-fold qualification was common: wherein then shall consist the marrow and quiddity which makes the Roman Bishops the peculiar Successours of Peter? For, should it be supposed that some peculiar imposition of hands did passe from Peter vp­on [Page 81] the first Bishop of Rome (wherewith the Holy Ghost was giuen in the time of the A­postles) or some portion of Pe­ters spirit was giuen to that first Bishop (as the spirit of Moses was vnto the Seauenty) or that Peters garments were put vpon him (as the garments of Aaron were vpon his Successours) or some such like Rite of conuey­ance;Num. 11:15 yet for as much as those kinde of ceremonies,Exod. 20.26. when they were vsed had no vertue in themselues but were diuised by the wisedome of God, for the shaddowing and concealing his owne miraculous and immedi­ate operations (as our Sauiour and the Apostles vsed Spitle, and Clay, and Hemmes of garments, Napkins, Partlets, & Shaddowes) the intitling any Bishop of Rome vnto Peters vertue, spi­rit, [Page 82] or priuiledge, by means of a­ny such outward passage which hath no diuine record to speci­fie it, is no lesse presumptuous then superstitious and ridicu­lous. Finally concerning their argumēt from Peters being the first Bishop of Rome (their car­dinall argument in this point) that therfore only the Bishops of Rome are his Locall, and so consequently his most proper Successours: wee answer; that neither is locall succession of force to attaine to the vertue of the predecessour; there being no kinde of place, whether natu­ral, ciuill, or mysticall, but which is capable euen of contrari­eties; euen the Soule of man (the purest vessell and continent that is) being a receptacle of Sinne as well as grace, and the Temple of God being destina­ted [Page 83] for the Seate of Antichrist as well as for Iesus Christ.Thes. 2.4. Nor againe can the Bishops of Rome be proued (at least in any pecu­liar manner) so much as his Lo­call successours; both for that other Bishops, as namely of Ie­rusalem and Antioch had Peter for their Predecessour (& that euen by Scripture inference) as also for that no diuine (or ap­proued) writer does auouch, ei­ther that Peter euer was the Bi­shop of Rome, or that hee was personally present at Rome. For whereas vpon Peters dating one of his Epistles from Baby­lon, 1 Pet. 5.13. it is argued that he was then at Rome; for that mystically hee might account that City Baby­lon, yet considering how there were three Locall Babylons, namely in Syria, Caldea, and E­gypt; which were farre more [Page 84] neerly situate vnto Peters Pro­uince then Rome was, there coniecture that Peter meant Rome by Babylon in that Text hath three to one against it. But if coniectures and good proba­bilities may be allowed to carry any sway in this businesse, it is easie to produce them abun­dantly, and that out of Scrip­tures, that Peter neuer was (but as euery Apostle was) any Bi­shop of Rome.Galat. 2.7. For first it is ap­parant that Peter by the speci­all appointment of the Spirit was confined vnto them of the Circumcision, whereof Rome was no part: Secondly, it was well nigh twenty or thirty yeeres after our Sauiour gaue Peter the charge of feeding his Sheepe, that Peter aboad about Ierusalem, Antioch, Ioppa, and those quarters. Thirdly, Paul [Page 85] in his Epistle to the Romans, does tell them that hee alwayes had a speciall care,Rom. 15.20not to build on anothers foundation; then the which Text, what more faire argument can bee framed, that Paul neuer esteemed the Church of Rome to haue any other founder then himselfe: as also his speciall Commission ouer the Gentiles (whereof Rome was the chiefe City) his large Epistle to the Romans (conteyning the foundation of the Christian Faith in all the dimensiōs) his being free borne of the Romans, his appealing to Rome in his persecutions, his abiding there diuers yeares, and that with fauour for prisoner; his inditing most of his Epistles there, and neuer making menti­on of Peter in any of them, but alwaies complayning how de­stitute [Page 86] he was, how all had forsa­ken him, how all sought their owne; how he had none was with him but Luke; how he had none like minded vn­to Timothy (euen when his death was instant) and such like cir­cumstances may inferre. Vnles it were to be supposed, that af­ter the death of Paul, Peter came out of Asia into Europe, to keepe consistory at Rome (and that 25. yeares by the rule of their owne stories) there to be­ginne an vniuersall Church-go­uernment (which in his best yeares hee neuer medled with) and in that City which hee is supposed to esteeme Mysticall Babylon? To this we may finally adde that no writers, liuing in the time of the first Bishops, do any where auouch that those first Bishops did euer challenge any such Soueraigntie, but ra­ther [Page 87] they auouch the contrary. For why does Clement, (who is supposed to bee the first Bishop of Rome) in his Epistle to Iames, Epist. 1. style Iames, Episcopum Episcopo­rum regentem Ecclesiam Hebraeo­rum Hierosolymis &c? Chrysost. ad pop. Anti­och. why does a Father tearme Antioch, Caput Orbis? which, in that the Dis­ciples did there first begin to be called Christians; (Act. 11.26.) it might farre better be so tear­med then any other;Concil. con­stan. 5. Act. 1. a Coun­cell also hauing these words A­postolici throni Antiochenae magnae ciuitatis. Or why was the Bi­shop of Alexandria intitled Iu­dex Orbis? Nyceph. canon. 92. Or why did the Councell of Affrick forbid ap­peales ad transmarina Concilia? A Father also affirming non esse congruum — that it is not meete for them that are in Egypt to Iudge them that are in Thracia:Chrysost. ad Inno. [Page 88] or why did the Councell of Carthage forbid that any should be called the highest Bishop? or why does a Pope of late times affirme that vntill the Councell of Nyce, Aeneas Sylu. there was but parvus respectus ad Romanos Episcopos? In which Councell also (if hee meant Nyceum primum) why was it decreed (An. Coun. Nic. 1 Can. 6. Dom. 323.) vt honor cuique suus servetur Ec­clesiae? wherein also it is expres­ly prouided that the Bishop of Ierusalem should haue his aunci­ent honour: Can. 7. and why in the pri­mitiue Councells had the Ro­man Bishops sometime the fourth place,Sozomen. Hist trip. 2.1. sometime the fift place, and sometime the sixt as­sined them? yea finally, why did Gregory (himselfe a Bishop and Pope of Rome) liuing about 500.Greg. 1. Lib. 4. epist. 32.yeeres after Peter, notwithstanding avouch, that none of [Page 89] his Predecessours did euer take vpon him to vse the vngodly name of Episcopus vniuersalis? yea & so deeply to challēge the Patriarch of Constantinople for assuming it, as that he tearmed him therein, the fore-runner of Antichrist: euery where not sparing in his Epistles to brand that title with all the reproa­ches and execrations hee could deuise; 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 speake it) If Gregory so thought him to be defied which would be cal­led Episcopus vniuersalis, what would he haue thought of that person who ordinarily aduan­ceth [Page 90] him selfe 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 vnum tribunal. 3.3. Ius Ca­non. S. 16.1. q. in gl. 4. Fran. Za­barel: Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum. 4. Persuaserunt Pōtificibus quòd omnia possent, et sic quòd facerent quicquid liberet, etiam illicita et quod sint plùs quàm Deus. 5. Extrav. Ioh. 22. in glos. 5. Credere dominum nostrum Deum Papam non po tuisse provt 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 vtrumque. 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 [Page 91] Romano Pontifici. 10. Cornel. episc. in o­rat. ad. Sy­nod in conc. Tryd. 11. Step. E­piscop. Pe­tracens. 12. Host: de sentent. excom. 13. Sylv. prier; 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 quàm 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. dictū ad pap. Iul. 16. Stella clericorū serm. 111. Tu es omnia et supra omnia. 16. Sacerdos est creator creatoris sui; —qui creauit vos absque vobis, creatur a vobis mediantibus vo­bis. And if euen a Priest can create his Creator; what then can hee not doe which makes that Bishop who makes that Priest that so makes his Maker? [Page 92] O feruent Gregory that thou wert but so long awake as to heare these manaer of voices of thy Successors! for if thy zeale grew so hot against one for be­ing tearmed Episcopus vniuersa­lis; how would it burne vp those, who with their Babylo­nian Tops haue surmounted e­uen Lucifer himselfe? For Lu­cifers only sicknesse being this because he was not (sicut altissi­mus) peere with the highest.Esay. 14.13 These most glorious birds of his, first making all mankind their footestoole, haue found the Highest to be their inferi­our, yea their very creature: and all this for the fulfilling that Scripture. He shall exalt himselfe aboue all that is called God. 2 Thes. 2.4.

5 The fift Linke of the Chaine is this: Only the Popes of Rome were the Successours of those Bi­shops. [Page 93] Whereunto we answer; that for as much as the Popes did differ from the Bishops, both in name (the word Papa not being knowne amongst the ancient Latines or those Bi­shops) and also in the forme of Election, (the most substantiall difference that States can haue) and thirdly in the qualitie of the persons both electing and to be elected; only Cardinalls (a Colledge vnknowne vntill 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 diuers kinde and originall from those Bishops, and so con­sequently more or lesse then Successours vnto those Bishops, and so finally more or lesse then Heads of the Church.

[Page 94]The last Linke of the Chaine is this: Only Hee which now pos­sesseth the Roman Papacy is the Successour of those Popes. Where­vnto wee answer; first, that is not only void of diuine proofe, but also that it is vncapable thereof: namely because it is grounded vpon matters of fact which hapned long since the time when those proofes had their last period. Secondly, as it is vncapable of diuine proofe, so also is it vncapable of the better kind of humane proofe; namely that kinde of proofe which is by operation of iudge­ment; matters of fact hauing only Sense and eye-witnesse to beare them out. Thirdly, wher­as other matters of fact are or­dinarily prooued with two or three witnesses at the most; this proposition must haue no lesse [Page 95] lesse then two or three hun­dred; euery seuerall Successour (whereof there haue beene a­boue an hundred) needing no lesse then two witnesses (a Re­gister being a double witnesse) to auouch the canonicall validi­tie of his choice. To these ex­ceptions we might adde how sundry times and waies the Suc­cession from the first Pope to the now present, hath beene in­terrupted. As first, for that the Papacie diuers times by the space of an whole yeare, and sometimes seauen yeares hath beene vnsupplyed; secondly, that diuers times againe, (no lesse then thirty seuerall times) there haue beene two or three Popes at once: thirdly, for that diuers times, the Successour hath contraryed, the Predeces­sour, and that so mortally, as [Page 96] that the dead corps of the Pre­decessour hath capitally been proceeded against. Fourthly, for that diuers haue beene e­lected and installed incompe­tently, indirectly, fraudulently, & violently; in which cases the so elected are by the Locall De­crees pronounced Apostaticall,Decret. 78. Siquis. and not Apostolicall. Fiftly, for that diuers haue supplyed the place which in their liues were most vile, Licencious, Mon­strous, Homicidious, Incestu­ous, Scismaticall, Hereticall, Magicall, and Diabolicall: in so much as a Writer of their owne Nation hath not spared to say that the goodnesse of a Pope is commended when it exceedes not the wickednesse of other men. Guiceardi. Lib. 16. And finally for that their doc­trine hath continually beene protested against, especially [Page 97] this last hundred yeares and that maugre all kind of tortu­rings, murtherings, and massa­crings that could bee deuised. These kind of allegatiōs though we might insist vpon, against the tenour of this pretended Succession; yet because it can­not be done, but by the aide of humane writers, which for that they bee subiect both to errour & falsifications, when we haue done neuer so much it will not be of force to either satisfie or conuince the conscience, which is the only thing wee aime at. To say therefore no more then we meane to make the consci­ence a Iudge of, and yet as much as conditionally (particulars not being capable of any other but conditionall demonstrati­ons) shall fasten vpon the Con­science; thus wee pronounce; [Page 98] that if at any time since first the Papacie began, any of the Popes did euer inioyne vpon Capitall penaltie blasphemous or Idola­trus Doctrine; or (to make our instance more speciall) if they did euer at any time capitally inioyne either the worshipping of any kinde of Image, or the bowing downe thereto; or that men should attribute more re­uerence vnto any kinde of I­mage (whether of God or man, Christ or his Crosse so suppo­sed to be) then vnto the mea­nest member of Christ vpon the face of the earth (yea the vilest man that is, hauing a deeper Character and impression of God, then the colourings, car­uings, or works of any mortall man whatsoeuer): or finally, if euer they did capitally inioyne, that men should esteeme, that [Page 99] to be the very true and proper person or manhood of Christ, which before the speaking afew words they cōfesse was no bet­ter then Bakers bread. In any of these cases wee pronounce and challenge their Successiō to be extinguished & as vtterly dead as euer Corps was whē the soul was departed. And that euery such Successor was no better the Successour of Peter, then darkenes is the Successour of the light, death the Successour of life, and Antichrist the Suc­cessor of Iesus Christ. But admit none of these Doctrines were euer taught in that Chaire from the first to the last, (which that is might bee true, no doubt all that euer writ or reported to the contrary would gladly be found lyars) yet will not the maine conclusion follow there­vpon, [Page 100] vpon, vnlesse all the former Linkes of the Chaine bee firme and inviolable: which if (Christian Reader) you find farre otherwise; then iudge how it concernes you to be­ware how you venter the waight of your saluation there­upon: least as the people of Israel leaning on the Staffe of Egypt did find it to bee but Reed; so you bearing your selfe vpon this Chaine, doo in the end, when it is too late, find it to bee made of Rushes: and while out of an hope to bee thereby haled vp to Hea­uen, you suffer your selfe to bee hoysted out of that pro­tection which God hath lent you vpon earth, you fall in the mid-way without recouery. Which Iudgement, God of his goodnesse keepe you and [Page 101] me from: and so Christian Reader commending these my paines vnto your seruice in the Lord: in him I leaue you.