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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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.

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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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; 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. 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: 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, 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 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 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, 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. Finally concerning Peters agencye and imployment in the Church affaires more then others, we anſwer: that the principall Agents and Speakers are 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) 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 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, 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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:

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 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 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 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 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: 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 in his Epiſtle to the Romans, does tell them that hee alwayes had a ſpeciall care,Rom. 15.20 not 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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? 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.

The fift Linke of the Chaine is this: Only the Popes of Rome were the Succeſſours 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 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.

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 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 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 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; 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 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, 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 me from: and ſo Chriſtian Reader commending theſe my paines vnto your ſeruice in the Lord: in him I leaue you.