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 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 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 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 wee finde long before Peters time to haue been committed vnto the Prophet Ieremie vnder the name of Eliachim in these words 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 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 the other being named of Paul and before Peter amongst those which were accounted pillars 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 c. Iames also being only named when Paul was dispensed withal for his cōdescēding 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 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 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 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 Labored more thē they all would not build on anothers foundation had the largest Prouince namly ouer al the Gētiles 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 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
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 and telling them in effect that authority and greatnesse was to bee deriued only from the Kings of the Nations 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 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 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. 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 Iames and 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
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 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 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 yet for as much as those kinde of ceremonies 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 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 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 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 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 style Iames Episcopum Episcoporum regentem Ecclesiam Hebraeorum Hierosolymis c 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 a Councell also hauing these words Apostolici throni Antiochenae magnae ciuitatis Or why was the Bishop of Alexandria intitled Iudex Orbis 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 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 there was but parvus respectus ad Romanos Episcopos In which Councell also if hee meant Nyceum primum why was it decreed An. Dom. 323. vt honor cuique suus servetur Ecclesiae wherein also it is expresly prouided that the Bishop of Ierusalem should haue his auncient honour and why in the primitiue Councells had the Roman Bishops sometime the fourth place 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. 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. In Papa est omnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam coeli quam terrae 2. Papa et Christus faciunt vnum tribunal 3. Papa potest dispensare contra ius diuinum 4. Persuaserunt Pōtificibus quòd omnia possent et sic quòd facerent quicquid liberet etiam illicita et quod sint plùs quà m Deus 5. Credere dominum nostrum Deum Papam non po tuisse provt statuit hereticum esse censetur 6. Papa praecipit Angelis et habet potestatem in mortuos 7. 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 Papa lux venit in mundum sed dilexerunt tenebras magis quam lucem 11. Tibi data est omnis potestas tam in coelo quà m 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. 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 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 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