member of the body It is therfore conuenient that Peter being but a member should be builded vpon the body considered together with the head 10 Surely Augustine had reason to fly 1. Pet. 2. 6. to the true Rocke of saluation For howsoeuer the succession of the Bishops of Rome till his time was an excellent testimony to the truth because they successiuely maintained the faith touching the fundamentall points therof yet he might well consider that Personall succession without succession in faith is not a sufficient confirmation or authenticall note of a true Church For at Cōstantinople there hath bin an interrupted succession of Bishops til this day And yet the Papists wil deny that to bee any part of Christ his Church because it reteineth not the true faith of Christ 11 But because there is such adoe about the succeeding of Peter and it is made a matter of so great importance it is necessary to bee proued that the Bishops of Rome bee Peters successors Which how possibly Papists can performe I cannot see sith there is such a disagreement about his supposed immediate successor the Decrees affirming Clement and writers of good regard as Ireneus and other placing Linus next after Peter 12 That this doubt whether the Bishops of Rome be Peters successors may be put out of all doubt the Papists must necessarily proue foure things 1. That Peter was at Rome 2. That he sate Bishop there 25. yeeres 3. That he was vniuersal Bishop And 4. That his vniuersal authoritie was sufficiently conueyed ouer to all that should lawfully succeed him in that See In any of which if they faile the Popes authority falleth to the ground For if Peter were neuer at Rome how could he be Bishop there If not Bishop at all how vniuersall Bishop If he had no such authority himselfe how could it be conueyed ouer to his pretended successors And if there were not sufficient conueyance how frustrate is the Popes claime But that there be such doubts in euery of these points as the Papists cannot cleerely resolue consider well the foure next articles 13 None doth simply deny but that Peter might haue been at Rome as a passenger or for some short abode although so much be not manifest But that he sate Bishop there and that so many yeeres is altogether vnlikely For it not very likely that Paul saluting so many by name as he doth in his Epistle to the Romans but that hee would make some honorable mention of Peter And wheras sixe of his Epistles were dated at Rome Is it not likly but that in some of them hee would speake of Peter if he had been there so long and in such authority as he doth of Timothy whose authoritie was lesse that thereby his exhortations and reprouings might better preuaile To say nothing that the Scriptures doe not in any place signify that Peter was at Rome Which in likelihood should haue bin done if God had seene succession of Bishops at Rome from Peter to be a matter of so great importance as now it is made 14 But say that he was at Rome it will helpe the Papists nothing except they can proue that hee was also Bishop of Rome Whereof there is small likelihood if wee take this word Bishop not in the large sense which comprehendeth Apostles and all Ministers hauing authoritie but in the strict sense which signifieth a Minister intituled to a certaine place For is it likely that Peter descended from the highest degree in the Church of which al Apostles were next to Christ the head to the inferiour degree of a Bishop or Is Matth. 18. 18. 28. 18. 19. 20. it likely that hee who had authoritie throughout the whole world as hee was an Apostle was tied to a particular charge as he was Bishop 15 But they say He was Vniuersall Bishop and therefore his authority was not restreined They must needs say so for else his supposed being Bishop at Rome will stand them in no stead But was his authoritie inlarged hereby If no for how could hee haue a larger iurisdiction thā Apostolical authority throughout the world what reason then can they giue why he should enioy that Vniuersall authoritie rather by the name of a Bishop and that of a particular place than by the name of an Apostle Againe Is it not strange that they cannot by any Scripture proue this point sith it is of such consequence with them as that it bindeth their consciences to the See of Rome Nay rather the Scriptures shew the contrarie For it is recorded in holy Writ That the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. 8. that is of the Iewes was committed to Peter and the Apostleship of the vncircumcision that is of the Gentiles such were the Romans was committed to Paul Againe Is it likely that Paul who Rom. 15. 20. inforced himselfe to preach the Gospell not where Christ was named lest hee should haue built on another mans foundation would so intrude himselfe into Peters office as to meddle with the affaires of so many Churches as he doth and that with all authoritie in his Epistle to the Romans and other his Epistles from Rome and al this without any mention of Peter if Peter had been at Rome and had such an Vniuersal authoritie Sith Paul as is said ioyned with himselfe for the more authorie of some of his Epistles Timothy one of lesse authority than Peter and writeth to the Philippians That he Phil. 2. 20. had none like minded to Timothy that would faithfully care for their matters Lastly It is vtterly vnlikely That Paul Gal. 2. 11. c. would haue reproued Peter to his face and that openly for withdrawing himselfe from the Gentiles if Peter had had such authoritie as the Papists dreame of 16 But suppose that Peter was at Rome and had such authoritie what is the Pope better for it if it were not made ouer to Peters successors by sufficient conueyance But in this poynt which chiefely concernes the Pope the Papists seeme vtterly to faile For Gregorie the first reprooued Iohn Bishop of Constantinople for indeuouring to obtaine the title of Vniuersall Bishop and to haue his Church called the head of all Churches telling him that none of the Bishops of Rome durst take such a title though the Emperours began in Rome were wont to abide there only and did then intitle themselues Emperours of Rome Nay he told him yet more plainely That whosoeuer aspired to bee Vniuersall Bishop was a fore-runner of Antichrist Whereby it is euident that in Gregories time there was no knowledge of any conueyance of Peters supposed authority made ouer to the Bishops of Rome But for al this peremptory iudgement of Gregory surnamed The Great within few yeeres after about anno 607. Boniface 3. obtained that title with much suite and bribery of Phocas an adulterer and murtherer of his master that Christian Emperour Mauritius with his wife and children But succeeding Popes
hath the title for otherwise they need not make such adoe to proue that Peter was at Rome seeing it were sufficient to proue if they could that he accepted the title then those 6. Popes howsoeuer they were in title Bishops of Rome yet in truth they were Bishops of Auignion and therefore no apparant successors of Peter and therefore no apparant heads of the Church and therefore for 70. yeeres the Church of Rome was not an apparant member of the Catholike Church according to the sense of the Papists themselues Fourthly Onuphrius a Popish writer telleth of 30. Schismes in the Church of Rome Of which the 29. lasted 50. yeeres together Wherin there were sometimes two Popes together and sometimes three All which three were remoued by the Councel of Constance Can any say that all this while there was an apparant head If not it must necessarily follow That the Church of Rome hath not been euer since the Apostles time an apparant member of the Catholique Church according to the sense of the Papists themselues 20 Lastly As when the eye is darke Matth. 6. 23 the whole body must needs be darke So if the head viz. the Pope be so corrupt as that it cannot be perceiued to be an apparāt member of the Catholike Church how can the Church of Rome whose being is altogether in that head be an apparant member But most of the Popes haue been such Ergo. For howsoeuer that cannot be verified of al the Popes which was said of Boniface 8. commonly called A diuell incarnat That he entered like a Fox raigned like a Lion and died like a Dog yet some of them entered by Coniuration or the diuels helpe as Siluester 2. and Gregory 7. first called Hildebrand or The brand of Hell Some by harlots as Christopher 1. and Iohn 11. Some by poysoning their predecessors as Damasus who also did drinke of the same cup and the said Hildebrand who besides his Coniuration made way to the Popedome by poysoning sixe of his predecessors and many by Simony or Violence Were they apparant members of the Catholique Church when they were Popes Nay sundry of them were heretiques As Liberius was an Arrian Honorius 1. a Monothelite Anastasius a Nestorian Iohn 2 2. denied the Life to come and the resurrection of the body and this was laid to his charge when he was deposed by the Councell of Constance and Eugenius 4. was condemned and deposed as an heretique in the Councell of Basil As for their Liues In respect of all it is no lesse truly than commonly said of Gregory 1. That he was the worst Bishop but best Pope of Rome But some of them Platina no Protestant called Beasts and Monsters and of Iohn 12. Cardinall Turrecremata writeth thus Because the life of this Pope was detestable therefore Christ himself gaue out the sentence of condemnation For while he was abusing a certaine mans wife the diuell stroke him sodainly and so he died without repentance To set downe in particular the monstrous offēces of most Popes is too large and too filthy a field for me to walke in I will therefore shut vp with the words of Genebrard a Popish Chronicler who writeth thus For the space almost of seuen-score yeeres and ten from Iohn 8. to Leo 9. about fiftie Popes did reuolt wholy frō the vertue of their auncestors and were Apostaticall rather than Apostolicall Yea some did get into the See by force or bribery Wherefore it is no maruell if they were monstrous sith they entered in not by the dore but by a posterne gate To conclude If the Church of Rome be not the Catholique Church because it is confined visible faileth in the faith without which faith personall succession is of no validitie If it haue no promise of perpetuity the words of Christ to Peter not seruing the turne and therefore may be ouercome as well as the Church of Israel whereunto the promises did appertaine If Papists cannot proue that Peter was at Rome nor that hee was Bishop there nor that he was Vniuersall Bishop nor that his authority was sufficiently cōueyed ouer to the Bishops of Rome vpon which succession standeth the being of that Church If the Pope vpon whom as their head the Church of Rome dependeth be Antichrist and sundry times yea many yeeres together there hath bin no apparant Pope at all and most Popes haue been no apparant members of the Catholike Church because of their heresies or monstrous liues it followeth euidently that the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church neither hath bin an apparant member of the same euer since the Apostles time And therefore it is to be wondered that any Christian man or woman should bee so simple as to hang their saluation vpon such a Synagogue as out of which God from heauen biddeth his people to depart Reuel 18. 4. THE THIRD POSITION PRIESTS ARE EXECVted not for Religion but for Treason IT is not to bee denied that Priests are executed for affirming the Popes Primacie and reconciling to the pretended Church of Rome c. which are points of their supposed religion But yet they are not executed for these or like points or parts as they be religious but as they bee trayterous or dangerous to the State in ciuill consideration 1 For if Priests were executed for these or like poynts as they be religious then the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiasticall maner before the secular power execute ciuill punishment As against Anabaptistes and other in this Queenes raigne hath bene performed So that Priests their case differeth from Hackets only Secundum magis minus the one being more dangerous in ciuil consideration then the other 2 Secondly they should be executed as wel for affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling c. as Story for his misdemeanure though beyond seas For such affirming the primacie and reconciling c. are as damnable in religious consideration on one side of the seas as on the other but not so dangerous to our state in ciuill consideration 3 Thirdly they should be executed as well for other points of popery as giuing the glory of the Creator to wit prayer and praise to creatures Angels Saints stockes and stones c. being no lesse damnable then such affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling c. in religious consideration but not so dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration As may appeare by a like case propounded If Anabaptistes denying magistracy and that Christ tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary should swarme in England and if Magistrates should punish in a more ciuil manner of proceeding not the latter though no lesse damnable as it is religious but the former being more dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration who would say that Anabaptistes did suffer for religion and not for treason or felony 4 That affirming the Popes primacy and reconciling c. may appeare directly to be dangerous to the state in ciuill consideration and therefore
Saturday is still sanctified Which to be sufficient to celebrate the Creator the fourth Commandement prescribeth neither this nor that seuenth day but one of seuen doth euidētly proue So that wheras Sonday is The Lords day and withall A seuenth day we may obserue that Christians * Ioh. 14. 13. glorifie the Father in the Sonne and celebrate the Creator with the Redeemer By whom a New creation though spirituall was performed x Isa 65. 17. 66. 21. 22 according to the prophecy of Isaiah Lastly If it may appeare by the word that Sonday was confirmed by the Apostles practise and preceptiue execution then Sonday hath authoritie not from the Church but from Christ But it appeareth by the word that Sonday was so confirmed therfore it hath authority not from the Church but from Christ. That the sequele of the Maior may better appeare I will manifest the Minor by these three places of holy writ viz. Act. 20 6 7. and 1. Cor. 16 2. and Reuel 1 10. For in the first place three things are to be obserued 1. That Paul abode at Troas seuen daies 2. That it is not said The Disciples were called of purpose to his preaching but Being come together to breake bread that is to be partakers of the Lords Supper And 3. That ready to depart on the morow he cōtinued his preaching till midnight Then it will appeare that Sonday there called The first day of the weeke in respect of the Iewes their account to whom Saturday was the seuēth that is the last day of the weeke was sanctified to holy meetings and exercises And that Paul waited as at Philippi y Act. 16. 12. 13. for the Sabbath of the Iewes so at Troas for the Christians their Lords day Which he would not haue done being an Apostle and hauing such hast of departure if Sonday had not been sanctified by greater authority than the ordinary authority of the Elders and Brethren If it be obiected that according to the originall the words bee One of the Sabbathes in the two former places and therfore it is vncertaine whether Sonday bee meant in those places rather than Saturday I answere That by the same reason it is vncertaine whether our blessed Sauiour did arise againe the third day z 1. Cor. 15. 4. according to the Scriptures For all the Euangelists a Mat. 28. 1 Mark 16. 2. Luke 24. 1. Ioh. 20. 1. vse the same words when they report That Mary Magdalen went to seeke Christ when he was risen But more fully to confute this Argument three things are to be noted 1. That in the originall the numerall One is put for the ordinall First For Marke hauing said in the second verse of his 16. chapter One of the Sabbathes speaking of Mary Magdalen her seeking of Christ chaungeth the words in the 9. verse and saith The First day shewing that Christ was risen And that Sabbathes is put for Weekes As in Leuit. 25. 8. it is written Thou shalt number 7. Sabbathes that is weekes of yeeres Secondly it is to be obserued That in both places only Christians are said to haue these meetings For they who came together are called Disciples Churches and are said To breake bread that is To receiue the Communion b 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. which none but Christians may do And therefore in both places the Spirit of God in two sundry writers Luke and Paul vseth these words The first day of the weeke rather than The Sabbath day more distinctly to expresse that day which was sanctified by Christians Whereas at Philippi where no Disciples were as yet Paul is said c Act. 16. 12. 18. to go on The Sabbath to the place where the Iewes were wont to pray after he had bin there certaine daies For what neede had the Christians being none but themselues to neglect the Lords day for the Iewes Sabbath Thirdly note that it is said Euery first day 1. Cor. 16. 2. and consider whether there be any probability that the Apostle would haue them come together euery Saturday If not it followeth necessarily that by The first day of the weeke Sonday is vnderstood In 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. we are yet further to consider that the Apostle saith As I haue ordained in the Churches of Galatia which argueth Generality and Euery first day which argueth Perpetuity So that by this place holy assemblies vpon Sonday may seeme as generall in those times so confirmed for euer by a preceptiue exhortation For as in this speech d 2. Tim. 2. 19. Let euery one that calleth on the name of Christ depart from iniquitie a preceptiue exhortation to call on the name of Christ is implied howsoeuer only departing from iniquity bee expressely commaunded So in this speech deliuered by an Apostle Euery first day of the weeke let euery one of you put aside is implied a preceptiue exhortation to come together vpon the first day of the weeke howsoeuer only putting aside be expresly commanded If it be obiected That these meetings were only to gather for the Saints I deny it For it is said Act. 20. 7. That the Disciples came together to break bread which importeth other holy exercises Againe If no more were vnderstood than expressed then Christians cōfirmed in the faith were lesse religious vpon their setled and sanctified holy day than they were ordinarily if not euery day at their first enterance into their holy profession For then they mette together e Act. 2. 42. 46. not only to breake bread but vnto doctrine also and prayers Lastly The Apostle who was so zealous to sanctifie the Lords day at Troas would no doubt reproue in this place so great neglect of The Lords day if such a matter were then to be supposed As for Reuel 1. 10. if nothing else were vrged but the consideration of the two former places it doth sufficiētly appeare that by The Lords day is meant The first day of the weeke now called Sonday according to the iudgement of all the learned Against which streame to striue by making a doubt without reason at least probable is to bewray a proud conceipt of a priuate opinion But howsoeuer this be sufficient yet for the godly their sake I will say somewhat more than inough It is the iudgement of the learned and I see nothing to the contrarie That as Paul praying in the Temple * Act. 22. 17 fell into a traunce so Iohn sanctifying the Lords day was rauished in spirit If so how can we imagine That Iohn banished f Reuel 1. 9 in the isle Patmos hauing no cause to cōstraine him nor occasion to induce him should rather sanctifie the Iewes Sabbath than the Christians holy day Againe If we find these titles Our Lord or The Lord so attributed to the Sonne that he is called g 1. Tim. 6. 14. 15. The Lord of Lords and by the title Lord h 1. Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6. Ephes 4. 4. 5.
6. distinguished from the Father and the Holy Ghost so that in few if any places of the new Testamēt it is applied distinctly by way of title to any but to the Sonne will any who saith Iesus is the Lord speaking by the Spirit of God make any doubt that by The Lords day is meant that day which was especially sanctified to the honor of Christ And will any Christian considering that which is said be yet doubtful whether that were Sonday or no Lastly Beza in his note vpon 1. Cor. 16. 2. reporteth That in one Greeke copy these very words The Lords be added to Euery first day Which sheweth manifestly That not the Iewes Sabbath but The first day of the weeke was called The Lords day If then in 3. places of holy Scriptures written by 3. holy men inspired by the Holy Ghost of whom Luke was an Euangelist Paul and Iohn Apostles we finde The first day of the weeke according to the computation of the Iewes now called Sonday sanctified to the worship of God yea so That Paul waited for it at Troas and doth preceptiuely exhort the same though by implication to be sanctified euery weeke amongst the Corinthians as in other places and it obtained the name of The Lords day as being specially sanctified to the honor of our Sauiour wee may conclude That it appeareth by the Word That the Lords day called Sonday was confirmed by the Apostles practise and preceptiue exhortation Now the Minor or assumption of the former syllogisme is manifested I am to confirme the sequele of the Maior or proposition Wherein two things are to bee proued 1. That The Lords day was not established by the ordinarie authoritie of the Church And 2. That it was established by the Diuine authoritie of our Sauiour Christ. The reason of both is because it was established by the Apostles The former though euident by that which is said will yet further appeare If we grant That the Primitiue Church attributed as much to the Apostles who first i 1. Cor. 3. 6. 10. planted the same and for the performance of that worke of God were k Act. 2. 4. indued with extraordinary gifts inspired by the Holy Ghost instructed l 1. 3. by Christ 40. daies after his resurrection as Israel did to Moses their Law-giuer But while Moses liued the Israelites tooke all their directions from him yea so That not only in difficult cases m Leuit. 24. 11. 12. Num. 15. 32. 33. 27. 1. 2. of blasphemy Prophaning the Sabbath and Daughters inheritance not formerly ruled by Moses they came to him to know the minde of the Lord but also in all things about the Tabernacle n Exod. 31. 3. 6. 39. 37. 42. 25. 38. 40. euen to a paire of snuffers the worke-men though miraculously inspired with cunning were altogether directed by him who had his instructions immediately from GOD. Can we then thinke That the Disciples came together euery first day of the week of themselues though by generall consent without the authoritie of the Apostles so directing them If they had attempted such a thing how could they haue answered this question o 1. Cor. 14. 36. 37. Came the word of God out from you A question made by the Apostle in a supposition that the Corinthians misliking Pauls directiōs touching silēcing tongues without interpretation and women in the Churches would happily say That they were of another opinion So that it importeth this reply But I pray you consider that the Apostles are the first teachers of the Church hauing receiued their instructions either immediatly frō Christ his mouth or by reuelation therefore the Church is to be ordered by them If then worke-men cunning by inspiration could not make a paire of snuffers without Moses his direction nor the Church in Corinth by it owne authority permit the manifestation of the extraordinary gift of the spirit to be in their publique assemblies without interpretatiō could The Lords day a matter of so great regard bee established without the authoritie of the Apostles Againe Whereas the Apostle hauing reproued certaine male vsages amongst the Corinthians and taken some order for reformatiō of the abuse of Loue feasts which were of good vse at the first but tending at last to the prophaning of the Lords Supper cōcludeth thus p 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things wil I set in order when I come Is it not euident that the Church could do litle or nothing much lesse establish Sonday to bee the Lords day without Apostolique authoritie Lastly If Titus an Euangelist q Tit. 1. 5. could not reforme Creta nor ordaine Elders but as he was appointed by Paul I see not but that all things in the Church were ordered and ordained by the Apostles If by the Apostles then by Christ Which is the second point in the Maior now to be proued If we receiue the writings of the Apostles as the Word of God why not their constitutions accordingly I meane not vnwritten verities or rather the very lies of Antichristian Papists but such ordinances as are mentioned and commended in the Word For the Apostles were r Act. 1. 2. 8. 22. 15. chosen and faithfull witnesses of those things which they haue heard and seene and no doubt as faithfull s 1. Cor. 7. 25 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. in all the house of God as Moses was about the Tabernacle and in gouerning Israel But Moses did not direct the worke-men to make any thing no not a paire of snuffers but according to the patterne which he saw in the mount and in the said cases of t Leuit. 24. 12. 13. Num. 15. 34 35. 27. 5 6. Blasphemy Prophaning the Sabbath and Daughters inheritance answered not of himself but consulted with God Therfore the Apostles did not prescribe ordinances but with such authority that Paul and so all might say u 1. Cor. 11. 23. I haue receiued of the Lord to wit Christ that which I haue also deliuered vnto you But what neede these inferences Doth not the Apostle charge * 14. 37. Euery man that thinketh himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall to acknowledge that the things hee writeth to them are the Commandements of the Lord If the things which he then writ viz. Directions about Prophecy Speaking with strange tongues and Silence of women in the Church were the Commandements of the Lord can we thinke him to be a true Prophet and spirituall indeed who perceiuing The Lords day to haue been established by the Apostles will not acknowledge it to be a Commandement of the Lord If it bee demaunded when our Lord commanded his Holy day I answere The faithfulnes and credit of the holy Apostles are sufficient to perswade an humble Christian to receiue it as the Lords ordinance though it be not certainly knowne when Christ did ordaine it But it is probable that he gaue commandement concerning the same within those 40.