framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
thou me more than thou lovest them or more than they love me And this probably was put to him to minde him of his former forward Profession and shamefull denial 2. That Christ made Peter a Head or gave him a supreme Dominion under the term of Feeding But 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to rule but onely to provide pasture or to eate as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth Jude 12. being intransitive both of them where they are enjoyned to Apostles Bishops or Presbyters note teaching not imposing Laws on persons excommunicating depriving and such like acts as Popes claim as belonging to them as Pastours as may appear by viewing the places Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 20. 28 29 30 31. Mark 6. 34. 1 Pet. 2. 25. and therefore if it prove Supremacy of Power Jurisdiction and Government in Peter it proves every Bishop and Presbyter to be also a supreme Head and Governour over the Church of God 2. That Peter had no such Headship of Government and Jurisdiction given him in those words John 21. 17 18. is proved by the description of the persons to whom these acts of feeding were to done they are the little Lambs and Sheep of Christ not Goats now to the Lambs and Sheep of Christ no act of lordly rule such as imposing Laws excommunicating depriving or the like acts in which the Pope placeth his power of Jurisdiction could be lawfully done nor did Peter any such acts but teaching them being guides to them directing exhorting and comforting them which the Pope regards not to do were to be done to them Wherefore it is plain that lordly rule was not appointed by Christ but fatherly care and tenderness in that injunction and that which Christ enjoyned in his Commission to Peter is that which the Pope neither regards to do noâ— thinks it his work but another thing to wit princely dominion which Christ forbade 3. The third thing supposed is that because the terms are indefinite my Lambs my Sheep therefore he meant all his Lambs and Sheep even the whole Catholick Church which if true then it is false which Paul saith Gal. 2 7. that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him and the Gospel of the circumcisiou unto Peter and vers 9. James and Cephas and John did sin against Christ's command in giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Heathen and James Cephas and John to the Circumcision and Paul did ill to style himself the Teacher of the Gentiles 1 Tim. 2. 6. and he should have boasted in another mans line or rule 2 Cor. 10. 15. sith all places had been within Peter's line or rule and he did ill to say Rom. 15. 15. that the grace of God was given to him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and never mention Peter's Supremacy no not in that very Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Rome so much as once naming him who was if Papists say true the Universal Bishop and Bishop of Rome and sate there at that time when he wrote that Epistle nor doth Paul salute him when he salutes many of less note As for that which H. T. infers from the not exempting of any therefore he comprehends all the Sheep and Lambs of Christ it is very frivolous For an indefinite term is not all one with an universal unless the matter so require it but in such kinde of speecheâ— as these it notes onely indefinite particulars as Gal. 2. 10. they agreed that we should remember the poor that is so many as we could and when Christ bids Matth. 10. 8. Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead it is meant without exceeption of any yet not an injunction to heal every individual or to raise every dead person but such as there was occasion of healing and raising And when Mark 16. 15. the Apostles are bid to preach the Gospel to every creature the Command is to preach to any one without exception yet not to every individual which had been impossible so here Peter is bid to feed any indefinitely yet not all universally which had been an impossible task 4. It is supposed that John 21. 16 17. was a Commission conferring power authority rule and that over the very Apostles themselves and that as a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection of Christ Whereas the thing enjoyned him is work requiring skill and care not dignity or authority of empire and hath nothing in it of jurisdiction as a Judge or Commander but of faithfulness and diligence as a servant and guide And in this the Apostles were equal to him H. T. himself confesseth here pag. 97. The Apostles were equal in their calling to the Apostleship to which this of feeding the Sheep of Christ belonged and therefore Peter reckons himself but a fellow Elder and requires other Elders to feed as well as himself 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Acts 20. 28. the Elders of Ephesus are appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the Church of God which is as large an exppression as is John 21. 16 17. and therefore doth infer as much Headship in them as in Peter And Paul counted himself not behinde the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. and Peter added to â—im nothing Gal. 2. 6. and therefore Paul derived nothing from him but was equal to him And to bid Peter to feed the Apostles had been to bid him feed the Shepherds The Doctrine of the Gospel is not termed the Doctrine of Peter but of the Apostles in common Acts 2. 41. even when Peter had converted persons and they were together nor did they go to preach with Peter as their Shepherd or by his direction but by agreement Gal. 2. 9. yea they sent Peter to Samaria Acts 8. 14. nor was this work of Feeding John 21. 16. 17. a privilege conferred on Peter for his special dilection but a task enjoyned to him because of his more open denial three times charged on him as he thrice denied Christ and used as a stay of Peter's weakness rather than a mark of his worthiness much less a proof of his Supremacy SECT V. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy THe second Argument of H. T. is this He that is by Gods appointment to confirm others in the faith and is generally set bâ—fore others in the Scripture must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity But St. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment was to confirm the Apostles in the faith and is generally preferred before them all in the holy Scriptures therefore St. Peter was above the rest of the Apostles in power and dignity and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest Answ The Conclusion it self might
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
great an opinion Of the four later surely the two last lesse deserve the name the later Nicene council being affronted by the Carolin council about Images at Frankford and the eighth by another of the same place of better note by Michael the Emperor and Photius the learned Parriarch of Constantinople who sure acknowledged not the Popes Monarchy but lived and died in contest against them But neither the four first nor the four last did ever ascribe to the Pope of Rome the monarchy and supremacy which are now arrogated nor did they ever receive what they professed because they professed it nor doth the desire or acceptance much lesse the having the Popes approbation at all prove any authority over them in him it being a thing usual to seek approbation of men who have no authority over the seekers by reason of their esteem for prudence learning and other qualities and for the more ready receipt of what they seek to have approved But the councils determinations and that with Anathema to the gainsayers shewed that they judged themselves to have decisive power without the Pope though his consent also were added as useful for some purposes 3. Saith H. T. The first revolt was made by the Grecians denying the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Son they were united again to the Church of Rome in the council of Florence sess last Answ 1. The denying of the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son is shewed to be an error only in manner of speaking by Sir Richard Field of the Church third book ch 1. and other learned men 2. The revolt so long shews the Protestants had predecessors for many hundred years together in opposing the usurpations and errors of the Roman Popes and Churches 3. The reconciliation at Florence was but an imperfect thing by persons whose acts were not avowed afterwards nor did the union hold but was quickly dissolved 4. The council of Florence was a council not allowed by that at Basil as being only of a faction to avoid the questioning of Pope Eugenius See Platina in vita Eugenii 4. 4. Saith H. T. they held transubstantiation seven Sacraments unbloody sacrifice prayer to Saints and for the dead cens eccles orientalis c. 7 10 12 13 21. Answ The Grecians hold not any such transubstantiation as whereby the elements are abolished and cease to be that they were but whereby they become what they were not and the transubstantiation they hold is a change of the communicants into the being of Christ that is partakers of the divine nature as the Apostle means when he saith they are the body of Christ as Dr. Field proves out of Dam. scen Cyril and others in his third book of the Church ch 1. Bishop Jewel reply to Hardings answer art 10. Nor are the speeches of transubstantiation transelementation and such like terms used by the Greeks any other than lofty hyperbolical speeches such as the Apostle useth when he saith Christ was crucified among the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. which abound in Chrysostome Pseudo Dionysius Areopagita c. insomuch that Chrysostom sometimes expresseth the presence of Christ in the eucharist as if it were sensible the communicants touching Christs body seeing his blood having their mouths made red by it sucking his blood receiving him into our house with more of the like as may be seen in Chamier Panstr cath tom 4. lib. 11. c. 9. As for seven Sacraments the Greeks do not teach them to be so many and no more nor the unbloody sacrifice any otherwise then by it to mean a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ as Chrysostom in his hom on the tenth to the Hebrew expresseth it It cannot be proved that the Greeks use such prayer to Saints as the Papists do directing their prayers to them as hearers and by vertue of their merits helpers to them that call on them Neither do they pray for the dead shut up in purgatory which as I alleged out of Roffensis the Greeks do this day deny and there enduring punishment of sense for deliverance thence but commemorate the dead even the most holy martyrs and confessors and pray for their happy resurrection and acquittal in the last judgement As for the Egyptian Christians and Armenians what they hold is not so easie to know by reason of their remoteness from Europe nor what Succession they have had But this is manifest enough that they did never submit to the Bishop of Rome as their Head except what was done at Florence for which Michael Paleologus the Greek Emperour was abhorred by the Greeks and denied Burial and Isidor Arch-bishop of Kioâ—ia in Russta deposed and put to death or by some obscure persons whose acts the Churches never owned and yet there doth not appear sufficient reason to exclude them out of the Catholick Church notwithstanding such Errours as are imputed to them nor to question their Succession Nor is the Protestants pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years idle it being not false but most true and so proved by Jewel and others and the Answers of Harding and other Romanists proved insufficient that they were in the most material points Protestants that is held otherwise than the Romanists now do And though it prove not a Succession of sixteen hundred years continued yet it proves a Succession of so long continuance as will make void the popish claim of Succession as peculiar to them and with any considerate person so far take place as to justifie the Protestants opposition against the modern Papist's Errours and Innovations 'T is true those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed and with whom they daily conversed than Protestants can now do in those things which they delivered by word of mouth to them if they were heedfull intelligent and mindefull of what they heard But what they left in writing we may know as well as they And experience shews that oft times upon mistakes and sometimes voluntarily the sayings of men spoken yea sometimes their very Writings either by unskilfulness or negligence or fraud are mis-reported and therefore notwithstanding this reason of the acquaintance of those of the sixth Age with those of the fifth yet it may be that Protestants may know the minde of the Fathers in the fifth Age as well as those that lived in the sixth But that those of the sixth Age have protested on their salvation that the Doctrine taught by the Fathers in the fifth Age was the very same with their in every point or the Doctrine now taught by the Romanists was received from them by word of mouth and so from Age to Age is not true yet if they should we have no more cause to credit them than the Church had to believe the Millenaries and Quartodesimans because of Papias and others their report of John with whom they conversed SECT
He that knoweth God heareth us and he that heareth us not is not of God in this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures c. He that believeth not shall be condemned St. Mark 16. 16. Answ 1. The conclusion is not the same with H. T. his tenet and so the proof is in the same manner faulty as in the first argument 2. The Minor is denied nor doth any one of the texts alleged prove it or any thing like it For 1. The text Matth. 18 17 or 18. is not as this Author cites it be that will not hear the Church as if it were an indefinite speech equipollent to this universal every man that will not hear the Church without which H. T. proves not his Minor but thus but and if he hear not the Church restraining it to the brother finning against his brother And first reproved singly 2. Before two or three witnesses 3. Of whom the Church hath been told 4. And he doth not obey the Church 2. The text speaks not at all of believing the Church in a point of faith but doing right to an injured brother For the phrase of sinning against a brother ver 15. can neither be meant of heresie or error in faith no nor sinfulnesse in life which is termed commonly though for the most part mistakingly a publick scandal or scandalous practise but only of a particular injury such as he against whom the sin was might forgive as is manifest from ver 21. and the parable following whereas to forgive heresies or errors in faith or publick scandalous practises is not in the power of a private brother 3. That by the Church is meant the Christian Church is not certain sith it is not as Matth. 16. 18. my Church but the Church nor if it were can it be understood either of the universal Church diffused over all the world sith it is impossible for every injured brother to tell his injury to it not of a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the world for either there never was such a Church or if ever there were it hath not been in many ages together H. T. confesseth p. 7. 25. the second third and tenth ages produced no councils Nor if there were in every age or every year could every injured brother addresse their complaints to them And the same may be said of the Pope sometimes there hath been none for some years together sometimes it hath been uncertain which was the true Pope sometimes by reason of persecutions and for other causes no accesse could be to him sometimes the wronged brother could not travel to him nor he hear his cause Nor is there any direction to go to his legate or any assurance that he can commit his power to another or that such a legate is infallible Undoubtedly by the Church Matth. 18. 17. must be meant such an assembly whether regularly formed or otherwise occasionally convening which is of near accesse and which is fit to hear the cause and to determin And I must confesse that I cannot deprehend that by the Church is meant the meer Ecclesiastical authority nor is here appointed that disciplin Ecclesiastical which is termed the power of the keyes to excommunicate hereticks and scandalous livers in the Church but a direction to a wronged brother how to deal in case of particular injuries the neglect of which the Apostle Paul blames so much in the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 4. Neither doth let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publican import excommunication out of the Church For it is said let him be to thee not to the Church as a heathen or a Publican nor is any power at all therein given to the Church to excommunicate all that the Church is to do is to injoyn what the injurious brother should do that excommunication which is here mentioned is appointed or permitted to the wronged brother Nor did the being a Publican exclude out of the Jewish assembly or service the Publican went up to the Temple to pray Luke 18. 10. Matthew a Publican was a Jew and had the priviledge of a Jew though a Publican nor was a heathen as such damned there were proselytes as Cornâ—lius who were heathens and yet were accepted with God only the publicans and heathens were such as the Jews would not have familiar arbitrary converse with as Luke 15. 2. 19. 7. Acts 11. 3. appears and therefore the speech can have no other sense but this If thy brother who wrongs thee will neither right thee after private rebuke nor after rebuke before two or three witnesses nor after the monition of the Church that is either that particular assembly of Christians to which ye are joyned or some other competent number of Christian brethren fit to hear such differences then mayst thou shun his society in such a manner as Jews are wont to shun heathens and publicans by not going in to them to eat or inviting them or other unnecessary society that so they may know how evil their dealing is and be ashamed and amended Which is nothing to that Ecclesiastical discipline or juridical excommunication which is at this day arrogantly claimed by Popes even over Emperours and by other Ecclesiastical prelates for breaking their Canons much lesse doth this text infer damnation to him that shall not hear the universal Church or Oecumenical council or Roman Pope The other text 1 John 4. 6. is lesse to H. T. his purpose For it speaks not a word of hearing the Catholick Roman Chuâ—ch or universal diffused over all the world or Oecumenical council or Roman Popâ— but of hearing the Apostles and other teachers of the Gospel opposite to false Prophâ—â—s ver 1. who denyed Jesus Christ to become in the flesh and of hearing them not in every thing but in the doctrine of Christs coming in the flesh And in like sort Marke 16 15 16. is a plain command to the Apostles not to the Bishop of Rome or an Oecumenical council or the universal Church for then the Pope should be â—ound to leave his See and the Bishops in a council to be non resident and go into all the world and the Apostles are bid preach not Popes decrees or councils Canons but the Gospel of Christ and the threatning of damnation is not to him that shall not believe the Popes decrees or the determinations of an Oecumenical council or universal Church but the Gospel of Christ which reacheth not them who deny the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation purgatory humane merits worshipping imagâ—â— not eating flesh in Lent Priests single life and such other innovations as neither Christ nor his Apostles taught but such as believe not the doctrine of Jesus being the Christ and salvation by him alone Whence it is apparent to any that are not resolved to shut their eyes against manifest light that none of these texts
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
Maccabees to be canonical l. 19. Moral c. 17. As for the third Synod of Carthage it was not an Oecumenical Synod and it is over ballanced by the Synod of Laodicea before it who omitted them And if the ancients termed the Apocryphal books canonical or divine they are to be understood according to Ruffinus his explication in his Exposition on the Creed and others that they were canonical in a sort as being read in the Churches by reason of some histories or moral sentences but not so as that they were brought to confirm the authority of faith by them H. T. further saith Ob. The Father 's err'd some in one thing some in another Answ A part I grant all together speaking of any one age I deny and they all submitted to the Church and so do likewise our Schoolmen who differ onely in opinion concerning School points undefined not in faith I reply 1. That the Fathers of some ages did generally hold errors is apparent in many particulars Augustine held it an Apostolical tradition that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for infants as appears l. 1. de pec merito remiss c. 24. and elsewhere and Maldonat on John 6. v. 53. saith that it was the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent the first and that it prevailed in the Church for six hundred years and yet the council of Trent sess 21. c. 4. can 4. saith If any say the communion of the Eucharist to be necessary for little ones afore they come to years of discretion let him be Anathema The like might be said of sundry other points as that of the Millenary opinion the souls not seeing God till the day of judgement c. 2. That all the Fathers did not submit to the Church of Rome is manifest by the Asian Bishops opposition to Victor about Easter to Stephen about rebaptization by Cyprian and others to Boniface Zozimus and Celestin about appeals from Africa to Rome by Aurelius Augustinus and a whole council 3. That the Schoolmen differ in points of faith defined is manifest in Peter Lumbard l. 1. sent dist 17. who held the holy Ghost to be the charity whereby we love God and the dissent from him in that point the differences about the Popes authority above a council power to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance certainty of faith concerning a mans own justification Gods predetermination of mans will and many more yet controverted between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molinists 4. All submit not to the Pope but some appeal from him to a council others by withstanding in disputes and otherwise decline his sentence in their cause of which the opposition against Pope Paul the fifth his interdict by the republick of Venice about their power over Ecclesiasticks is a famous instance evidently shewing that all that live in communion with the See of Rome acknowledge not such a supremacy and infallibility to it as the modern Jesuits ascribe to it Yet again saith H. T. Ob. St. Augustin tells St. Hierom that he esteems none but the writers of the Canonical books to have been infallible in all they write and not to erre in any thing Answ Neither do we we esteem not the writers of councils infallible in all they write nor yet councils themselves but only in the Oecumenical decrees or definitions of faith I reply Augustin Epist 19. to Hierom doth not onely say thus I confess to thy charity that I have learned to give this reverence and honour onely to those books of Scriptures which are now called canonical that I do most firmly believe no author of them to have erred any thing in writing but he adds also But I so read others that how much soever they excel in holiness and doctrine I do not think it true because they have so thought but because they could perswade me either by those Canonical authors or by probable reason that it abhors not from that which is true Which plainly shews 1. That he counted only the writers of Canonical Scriptures and those books infallible 2. That the sentence of others however excellent in sanctity and doctrine is not to be believed because they so thought 3. That their sentence prevailed with him so far as it's proof did perswade 4. That this proof must be by the Canonical Scriptures or probable reason H. T. adds Ob. St. Augustin Epist 112. says we are onely bound to believe the Canonical Scriptures without dubitation but for other witnesses we may believe or not believe them according to the weight of their authority Answ He speaks in a particular case in which nothing had been defined by the Church namely whether God could be seen with corporal eyes But the decrees of general councils are of divine authority as we have proved and therefore according to St. Augustin to be believed without dubitation I reply though he speaks upon occasion of one particular case yet the speech is universal but for other witnesses or testimonies besides the Canonical Scriptures by which any thing is perswaded to be believed it is lawful for thee to believe or not to believe as thou shalt weigh how much moment those things have or not have to beget faith There 's not a word of exception concerning a thing defined by the Church yea the opinion of Augustin is full and plain in his second book of baptism against the Donatists ch 3. to take away infallibility from any Bishops or councils Oecumenical which I think fit to translate to shew how contrary it is to Austin to make any councils after the Apostles infallible Who knows not saith he the holy Canonical Scripture as well of the old as of the new Testament to be contained in it's certain bounds and that it is so to be preferred before all the later letters of Bishops that a man may not doubt or dispute of it at all whether that which it is manifest to be written in it be true or right but for the letters of Bishops which have been or are written after the Canon confirmed it is lawful that they be reprehended if perhaps in them any thing have deviated or gone out of the way from truth both perhaps by the wiser speech of any man more skilful in that thing and by the more grave authority of other Bishops and the prudence of the learned and by councils And those councils which are held in single Regions or Provinces are to give place without any windings to the authority of more full councils which are gathered out of the whole Christian world and oft times those former fuller councils may be mended by later when by some trial of things that is open which was shut up and known which did lye hid without any smoke of sacrilegious pride without any swollen neck of arrogance without any contention of wan envy with holy humility with Catholick peace with Christian charity Yet once more saith H. T. Ob. St. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Bishops
when God calls for it in time of affliction and for more advantage in prayer but they reject Popish set fasts and their mock-fasts in forbearing flesh of beasts eggs milk butter yet eating and drinking other food and drink perhaps more delicious in fulness as a meer delusion Protestants teach praying much in spirit with understanding of what they ask with faith and trust to be heard through the Name of Christ for such good things as God hath promised but they deride justly Popish praying in Latin by those who understand not what they say their saying Ave Maries and the Creed for Prayers their superstitious saying Prayers with Beads by tale their tying themselves to canonical hours as more holy than other times their Prayers for Souls in Purgatory which is a meer figment serving onely to affright silly people that they may draw money from them for saying Masses they detest that most abominable invocating of the Virgin Mary wherein she is extolled as Authour of Grace Mother of Mercy having authority over or upon Christ with abundance of wicked Superstitions which are used in Popish devotion to canonized Saints Crucifixes a piece of Bread imagined Relicks of Saints Protestants press on men true mortification of the sins of the flesh or deeds of the body by the spirit working hatred of the inward lusts and forsaking the evil practises of them but they reject the foolish practises of whipping themselves tearing the flesh with lying on Briars as they say Benedict did tumbling in the Snow as they say Francis of Assisium did girding the body with Iron and lying on the ground as they say Dominick did which neither subdue lust nor the Devils temptations but are like the acts of Bedlams and may be and perhaps are done out of vain-glory and proud conceit of meriting by them Protestants exhort to good works but deny the building of Monasteries to be such for idle Monks that in stead of working with their hands that they might give to him that needs eat the bread to the full which belongs to the needy poor under pretence of praying which is no special function Protestants teach men to be poor in spirit to bear patiently poverty when Gods providence allots it but the voluntary poverty of Monks and Friers they reject as being a curse or else a meer hypocritical counterfeiting of poverty when they enjoy greatest plenty and live in fulness as Monks and Friers usually do or else a meer madness as in Anchorites and Eâ—â—mites Protestants teach true chastity in Marriage and single life but they detest Popish vows of single life in Priests Friers and Nuns as superstitious snares when few of them have the power of continence and they abhor the terming of the use of the Marriage-bed in Presbyters unchast and unholy and most of all the hellish Doctrine of those that teach it to be better for Priests to use Concubines than Wives and tolerate fornication and other unclean lusts when they forbid Marriage and excommunicate and deprive and imprison and persecute Priests and Bishops for it We Protestants teach obedience to Parents and Magistrates and all that are over us in the Lord but abhor the Vow of blinde obedience to Superiours never appointed by God as slavish and oft-times mischievous and destructive of the necessary obedience due to Parents and Governours whom God hath established All which things being considered we are fully assured that the Protestants Doctrine in these things is most holy and the Popish impure though to men that know not the Scripture it have a shew of wisdom and holiness Yea we avouch that there is scarce a Church in the World that is more unholy than the Roman in their maintaining the Worship of Images which hardens the Jews from Christianity in their adoration of the Bread they eat as their Maker which moved Averroes a Mahometan to prefer Philosophers afore Christians the infallible Power of the Pope though a most wicked man by himself or in a Council of his liking to set down what is to be held in point of Faith to dissolve Leagues and break Oaths upbraided by Amurath the great Turk to Christians to dispense with incestuous Marriages deny Marriage to Priests which Pius the second a Pope thought fitter to be restored forbidding some Meats as unclean at some times the Cup at the Eucharist and the ordinary reading of the Bible in their own Language to the Lay-people directing men to invocate Saints teaching them to ascribe salvation to their own Merits making the man of sin the Vicar of Christ besides what some have taught about deposing and destroying Princes giving equivocating Answers to Magistrates upon Oath exempting Priests from subjection to Princes allowing the breach of faith to those they judge Hereticks making cursing Parents in passion and other horrid evils venial sins allowing great crimes upon the probable opinion of one Doctor killing a man to vindicate honour and such other most odious resolutions of cases of conscience of the late Jesuits which the more sober and honest Jansenist in his late Book of the Mystery of Jesuitisme hath discovered in which there may be found such a Nest of most stinking Doctrines vented by Jesuits as honest moral Infidels by the light of nature did detest and from their Doctrines we may truly infer that Rome as now it is is indeed the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth On the other side though Protestants are not without Errours yet in the main matters especially in the Doctrines of the Gospel and holiness and righteousness of life their Doctrine shines more bright than ever it did in any Church since the Age following the Apostles unto this day SECT V. The devotion of Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman Church it being for the most part will-worship and pharisaical hypocrisie H. T. goes on thus Her Churches are open and Divine Service said not onely on all Sundays and Holy-days but every day in the week and that the greatest part in the forenoon There is five times more preaching and catechizing and ten times more fasting and praying in the Catholick Church than in the Protestant her Sacraments are more and more frequented and in stead of an innumerable multitude of religious men and women that are in the Catholick Church who have freely forsaken all things to follow Christ and totally relinquished the riches pleasures and preferments of this life to serve him in the remainder of their days in vows and practises of holy poverty obedience and chastity Protestants have an innumerable company of Sects and Sect-masters that daily spring out of their stock such as are continually broaching new Heresies and always at defiance one with another Answ THe Popish devotion is so far from proving the holiness of the Roman Church falsly and most impudently termed the Catholick Church that it rather proves them a Synagogue of Satan than a Church of Christ Their Churches as they term them stand open but that which
it being in Luke 22. 25. onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have rule over them And that where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth not forbid onely tyrannical dominion but also any dominion at all over one another is apparent from many Arguments in the Text. 1. From the occasion which was the petition and contention in opposition to which this answer being made Christ must be conceived to forbid what they sought for else it had not been apposite to the business but they sought not tyrannical dominion but the higher seat and chief dignity and power or as Christ's answer Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimates they strove for seniority or priority of order and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 24. and Matth. 20. 27. Mark 10. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that the thing they sought was not Supremacy but onely priority therefore our Lord Christ forbids not onely tyrannical dominion but the higher seat chief dignity and power and the affecting seniority or priority over or before one another 2. From the subjects whose dominion is forbidden who are termed not Tyrants but Kings of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that have authority Luke 22. 25. in Matth. 20. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes or Rulers or Leaders of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the great ones in Mark 10 42. yet more diminutively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that seem or are accounted to rule or lead the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their great ones Which terms do plainly shew that these whose dominion was forbidden to the Apostles were the Rulers which were esteemed and accepted by those to whom they were Rulers and had lawfull authority and therefore such rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used among the Nations and not onely tyrannical and meer lording it over one another after their own will 3. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however it may be sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be meant so sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have absolute lordly arbitrary forcible dominion 4. This is further confirmed in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well forbidden as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have authority or power as well as to have dominion and that which is expressed by the compound in Matthew and Mark is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple in Luke which is used still of rule without abuse 5. In Luke it is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word that signifies Benefactours and though to be Benefactours is not forbidden yet it is forbidden to be so called that is to affect that Title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another in bestowing favours granting petitions one to another bestowing preferments or refuse which doth imply superiority in some sort and such a dependence one on another as the Apostles were not to have 6. The additional speech of Christ commanding in stead of dominion Matth. 20. 26. 27. Rather Ministery and service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7. Christ's propounding his own Example Matth. 20 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 22. 27. as that which they were to follow evinceth the same And though it is true he was their Master and Lord John 13. 13. yet both there vers 14 15. and here he propounds himself an Example onely in service 8. He expresseth that which he would have them to be so emphatically that he not onely forbids that which all counted unlawfull to wit tyrannical rule but also requires in those places such a mutual debasement voluntary subjection condescension Ministery yielding to each other as takes away all assuming of so much as was lawfull in others even the taking to themselves priority of order or place precedency seniority affected empire or rule over one another as the words Matth. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. do plainly shew 9 This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Matth. 18. 1. 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33 34 35. Luke 9. 46 47. in which places Christ resolves them that they should be as a little childe that assumes not empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10. It is further evident from Luke 22. 28 29. 30. that Christ having forbidden Supremacy or superiority in any of them among themselves doth promise them a Kingdom afterwards and that then they should be in his Kingdom and eat and drink at his Table and sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel in recompense of their abiding with him in his temptations And in very truth if there were no more than the consideration of the present state of Peter and the Apostles their despised and persecuted condition and the future accidents that Christ foretold should befall Peter in particular John 21. 28. and the rest of the Apostles Matth. 24 9. no man could reasonably imagine that Christ should make Peter a visible Monarch to rule the Apostles and the Church scattered over the World he himself being in prison and they also and in so remote places he unknown to them and they to him they having no access or means of access to him nor knowing where to finde him but all judicious men must conceive that this device of Peter's Supremacy over the Apostles and whole Church given by Christ is a meer impudent forgery as was after Constantine's donation to the Bishop of Rome by which wicked means the Popes have usurped the greatest tyranny that ever was in the World Out of all this I gather that Christ intended 1. That there should be no Kingdom Monarchy or Empire in any of the Apostles over the rest or any part of the Church till he came but that their state should be a state of service in preaching the Gospel and laying the foundation of Christianity till his coming 2. That then he onely would be King and they all equals sitting upon twelve Thrones with him and therefore that he would make none of them supreme Monarch over the rest nor Vicar to himself as the Pope doth blasphemously and arrogantly challenge And for that which H. T. saith that Christ expresly mentions a greater and a lesser a superiour and inferiour among them it is frivolously added sith it is plain that what in Luke is vers 26. he that is greater he that is chief is in Matthew 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43. He that would be great among you he that would be first and that which is in Matth. 20. 26 27. let him be in Mark 10. 43 44. shall be your Minister your servant is in Luke 22. 26. Let him be as the younger as the