Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	peter_n	rome_n	unwritten_a	21	3	16.9608	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71307	Purchas his pilgrimes. part 2 In fiue bookes. The first, contayning the voyages and peregrinations made by ancient kings, patriarkes, apostles, philosophers, and others, to and thorow the remoter parts of the knowne world: enquiries also of languages and religions, especially of the moderne diuersified professions of Christianitie. The second, a description of all the circum-nauigations of the globe. The third, nauigations and voyages of English-men, alongst the coasts of Africa ... The fourth, English voyages beyond the East Indies, to the ilands of Iapan, China, Cauchinchina, the Philippinæ with others ... The fifth, nauigations, voyages, traffiques, discoueries, of the English nation in the easterne parts of the world ... The first part.	Purchas, Samuel, 1577?-1626.	1625 (1625)	STC 20509_pt2; ESTC S111862	280,496	1,168

chief Pastors Councils Nations converted and publique Professors of her Faith But his catalogue proves not that which it is brought for For 1. many hundreds of years there hath been no one of the Roman Popes or very few who have been Pastors at all in the church of God they have been Statesmen have meddled with the civil affairs of many kingdoms disturbed the Empire and many Kingdoms advanced their base sons who are tearmed their nephews and their kindred made wars with christian Princes but have not preached the Gospel nor expounded the Scriptures to the people though even the Council of Tre●t decree Sess●● de reform c. 1. Sess 23. de reform c. 1. that they ought to be resident because they ought to feed their flock with the Word with Sacraments with Prayers and good Works which is the onely feeding which can denominate men pastors of the church of God But the Popes have for a long time shewed themselves neither to have skill nor will thus to feed the flock by preaching the Gospel but use to stay the flock of Christ by their Bulls Excommunications and Inquisitions 2. Of those he reckons up p. 32. from the year 1300. five or six of them cannot be termed the Roman churches Pastors but hire●ings which forsook it they being absent from Rome and inhabiting Avignon in France many hundred miles from Rome seventy years together 3. Some of them who are reckoned in the catalogue could not be Pastors at their entry one to wit Benedict the ninth being a boy almost ten years old as Baronius terms him Ann. 1033. num 6. Another John the thirteenth a lad eighteen years old at most as Baronius Ann. 955. num 2. 3. reckons when they first were Popes And if a great many of their own best Writers in their times do not bely them there was one of the Popes a woman and sate some years as Pope 4. Their succession is a very uncertain thing For 1. It is certain that Jesus Christ was never Pastor of the Roman church as Bishop there seated and it is very audaciously if not blasphemously done by H. T. to reckon him as chief Pastor of the Roman church and to make Peter and others as Successors to him in his pastoral Office as if it were ceased in his own Person and transferred to another as his Successor Nor is it likely that Peter was ever at Rome or Bishop there notwithstanding some of the Ancients by uncertain tradition have conceived he was For neither were the Apostles settled any where as Bishops of one place nor were they to be it being against their commission and peculiar work of planting churches in many places And Peter being the Apostle of the circumcision Gal. 2. 7. and his being many years in the parts about Judea of which the Scripture makes express mention it is very improbable that he was at Rome at all certainly not so as to sit there as Bishop so many years as some Writers do write of him And it is more likely if any where he was Bishop of Antioch where it is certain he was Gal. 2. 11. and as good authority there is of his being Bishop there as of his being Bishop of Rome and therefore the succession to Peter was rather to be there than at Rome nor is there any proof of translation of Peter's See from Antioch to Rome 2. Concerning the succession after Peter there is so much uncertainty as may shew how miserable a people they must needs be who have no better proof for their church than such uncertain succession For 1. There is no certainty but difference among their own Writers who was next after whether Linus or Clemens or whether both together and the like concerning the order of Cletus Anacletus Clemens as may be seen in Platina and Onuphrius and others 2. It is manifest that the succession hath been through dissention about the election sometimes a great while interrupted as Baronius confesseth Ann. 853. num 63. It hath fallen out that the See of Rome hath been void above two years and five moneths the election being delayed through contention 3. There have been many Schisms very near thirty in which there have been two or three Popes at once one opposing cursing and condemning the other and no clear certainty who was the right Pope Nations and Princes being divided some adhering to one some to another 4. A great part of their succession even by the confession of their own Writers is of Monsters as they term them more truly to be termed devils incarnate rather than men so abominably wicked that hell hath not worse in it not worthy of the name of Christians much less of Pastors of the church of God not worse surely in any church I think not the like for wickedness any where so that the succession of such Pastors is fitter to prove the Roman party a Synagogue of Satan the very seat of Antichrist than the onely true church of God Methinks no man that thinks well of Christ should imagine he would trust the Government of the Universal church with such men but rather if he intended to commit that care to any one have chosen a better race than the Popes have been to manage it 5. Their succession is also by their own Writers said to be with such wicked practices of poysoning predecessors corrupting Cardinals power of notorious whores dealing with the devil Simony and bribes fightings and bloodshed as proves them Successors to Nero rather than to Peter So that if a man would draw an Argument to prove the Roman church to be the Mother of barlots and abominations of the earth as Rome is stiled Rev. 17. 5. by the confession of their own Writers the story of the succession of the Popes and their lives might convince one that is not bewitched with their sorceries that such hath been for many hundred years together the Church of Rome 6. It is also false that those he calls cheif Pastors have had a continued succession in the profession of the same Faith with the now Roman sith it is not denied that Pope Liberius joyning with the Arians and subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius as Hierom in his Chronicle and Catalogue of writers in that of Fortunatianus testifies did as Bellarmin acknowledgeth l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. by interpretation if not expresly consent to the Arian heresie and Pope Honorius the first in the sixth Synod at Constantinople Act. 12. 13. Pope Agatho being President was condemned as a Monothelite by hundreds of Bishops and after by other Synods besides what is charged on sundry other Popes even by Popish writers as Anastasius John the 22. c. As for H. T. his Catalogue of Councils Nations converted and publick Professors of the Romish Faith it proves much less that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the

Nor can indeed in any true sense the Pope of Rome be termed Peter's Successour For if he be his Successour he is Successour in his Work or in his Power The Work of the Apostle Peter was by preaching the Gospel to found Churches to Christ and to that end was to go to several places but the Pope of Rome succeeds not in this he neither goes up and down unless in a pompous Procession or to a worse end nor preacheth the Gospel nor founds any Churches thereby nor doth think it his business but to stay at Rome and there to live in pomp and wealth and luxury and to lord it tyrannously over the Flock of God Nor is he Successour in his power Peter had power to give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. to strike Ananias and Sapphira dead Acts 5. But the Pope cannot do these things Nor in the Government of the whole Church For this Peter onely had not nor above other Apostles but together with the rest Nor was Peter's or the Apostles power any such visible Monarchy as the Pope claims to receive Appeals from all Churches to appoint Legates to hear parties in all controversies of faith to be an infallible Judge of such controversies an infallible Expounder of the Scriptures determining what is Heresie and what of Faith calling general Councils crowning Emperours deposing Princes dispensing with Oaths Marriages of persons in near degrees otherwise prohibited impose Laws about Fasting and many other things which God never appointed Such an Headship of the whole Church as the Pope claims Peter never had Nor is any such thing proved or so much as offer'd to be proved by H. T. his Catalogue which how insufficient it is hath been alread shewed I go on to his Arguments here SECT II. From being the Foundation Matth 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 15 16 17. neither Peter's nor Popes Supremacy is proved The first Argument saith H. T. is this The foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep But St. Peter next after Christ himself was the Foundation of the whole Church and Pastour of the whole Flock therefore St. Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church and was Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep of which number were the rest of the Apostles Answ THe Headship and pastoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onely by teaching but a princely dominion so as that all may appeal to him none from him his sentence must be obeyed by all under pain of damnation in matters of faith and must be judged infallible and 't is likely he holds with Bellarmine lib. 4. de Rom. pont cap. 5. that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices or forbidding virtues the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil unless it would sin against conscience and if he dissent herein from Bellarmine yet in the Canon Law distinct 40. such an absolute dominion is given him that though he should draw innumerable souls with him to Hell no man must say to him Why dost thou so and some Flatterers of the Pope have given him all power in Heaven and Earth yea and more than Christ had in Purgatory also allowing no Appeal from the Pope to God as having one Consistory with God calling him our Lord God the Pope nor did I ever read or hear that any Pope hath by any Censure corrected such blasphemous Titles but they have by their commands contrary to Gods dispensing with his Laws deposing Emperours and innumerable other practises shewed that they owned such power as theirs Now sure this power was never given to Peter nor any such like power under the term of a Foundation which is for the ruine not for the establishing of the Church nor under the charge of feeding especially of anothers Sheep of whom he is no Owner or Lord. Is this to feed Christ's Sheep to do what he will with them appoint what Penance he will put what Laws he please on the Sheep to excommunicate deprive of Civil and Ecclesiastical Dignity and Office at pleasure such a Supremacy is indeed so like that which Paul foretold concerning the man of sin 2 Thess 2. 4. that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God that till I meet with some more likely than the Popes to be there meant I shall take it be a part of my Creed that the Pope of Rome is the very Man of sin there meant And for this H. T. who gives such a supreme Headship to Peter and the Pope over the other Apostles so as to make him a Shepherd to rule excommunicate deprive John James Paul as his Sheep it is so monstrously false an Assertion as none but he that hath sold himself to teach Lyes would ever assert it As for his Syllogism it is most grosly naught as having four terms at least The term hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it being different from this in the Conclusion had a preheminence over the whole Church and so likewise are these the Foundation and the Foundation of the whole Church and therefore the Major should have been the Foundation of the whole Church hath a preheminence over the whole Church the Minor thus Peter next after Christ is the Foundation of the whole Church and the Conclusion thus Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church or else thus The Foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church But Peter next after Christ is the Foundation therefore Peter had a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church now neither of these Conclusions had been the point to be proved but might have been granted and the Assertion not gained And in the other Metaphor the Syllogism hath the same fault For in the Major it is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep in the Minor it is Pastour of the whole Flock and in the Conclusion not Head of his Flock and above his Sheep but Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep and there is added too this tail of which there is no offer of proof of which number were the rest of the Apostles Now to discover besides the fallacy in the form the deceit in the matter of this Argument it is to be considered 1. That the Metaphor of a Foundation doth not at all import Rule or Government but inchoation and support and therefore is unfit to prove that Rule and Power of Government which H. T. derives from it 2. That he that is a Shepherd is Head or Lord

and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the p●pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God

Heaven preach any other Gospel than that which is written he is to be held accursed Gal. 1. 8 9. And that Miracles are not necessary for proving our calling while we preach the Scripture-doctrine as Bellarmine scribles lib. 4. de not is Eccles cap. 14. But on the other side if Papists do not stick onely to Scripture nor will be tried by it it is necessary they should produce Miracles of their Popes and Prelates to verifie their claim or new Gospel of which they are altogether desti●●te and have nothing to allege but a company of Fables concerning some foolish Friers such as Francis Dominick c. upon the report of silly superstitious Women and doting companions of them or some jugling tricks in corners done by cheating Priests and Jesuits which serve for no other purpose but to prove the Priests to be Knaves and their Popish Proselytes that believe them to be fools And we have cause to press them as in the next Objection Why do not then your Priests do Miracles we would be glad to see some of their doing To which H. T. saith Answ Because of your incredulity as our Saviour told she Jews St. Matth. 17. 19 Yet they do many in Gods appointed time and place as the Records of the Church will testifie though not to satisfie your sinfull curiosity See Francis a Sancta Clara in his Paralipomena who recounts many great and evident Miracles I reply if our incredulity be the onely reason of their not doing them among us yet me thinks they should do them in Italy and Spain where men have ●aith in them But except of a few tales of Philip Nerius Ignatius Loyala Francisca Teresa Isidore of Madrid an Husbandman and some other late canonized Saints long after their death sworn by some admirers of them or credulous receivers of reports concerning things of them not openly done and commonly known as the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were I hear of none The Paralipomena of Franciscus a Sancta Clara or Davenport who endeavoured to reconcile the nine and thirty Articles of the Church of England with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that is Light with Darkness a little afore these Wars I never saw nor do I expect to finde any thing from such a man but fraud and falshood who had the face to endeavour to draw the Articles purposely framed against the Popish Doctrine to a sense consistent with it What Justus Lipsius writ of the Miracles done by the Idol at Halles and Zichem Turselin of the Chapel at Lauretto and such like Relations there is no man that heeds the Scripture will give any credit to them but take them either as fictions or illusions of Satan to confirm men in the idolatrous Worship of the Virgin Mary and to promote the Priests gain which is a great part of the Roman Religion But the frequent Impostures of Papists in this kinde as of the Blood of Christ at the Abby of Hales that of Boxley Abby and the holy Maid of Kent related by Speed in his Chronicle of Henry the eighth at Orleans by Gray Friers related by Sleidan Com. lib. 9. at Bruxels related by Meteran lib. 10. hist Belg. that of the Boy of Bilson near Wolverhampton in Stafford-shire which is related in a Book of that thing and persons yet alive can testifie of the Priests deceit in it with many more give just cause to discredit all such Narrations as meer jugling tricks Nor have the Legends of Saints which this man calls the Records of the Church any better credit with the more ingenuous of their own Church of whom though some mince the matter calling them Pious Frauds as if Piety might be upheld by Lyes yet Ludovicus Vives freely censured those that made them to have had a Brasen forehead and those that believed them a Leaden heart And therefore it is the more necessary for their Priests to let us see their Miracles not to satisfie our curiosity but our consciences if they will have us converted from disbelief in their Lord God the Pope as in the Canon Law be is termed there being nothing in the Scripture to prove the Roman Churches verity or infallibility or the Popes Supremacy as will appear by examining the seventh Article to which I now hasten which is intituled The Popes Supremacy asserted ARTIC VII The Popes Supremacy is an Innovation The Pope or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole Church of God is not proved by H. T. SECT I. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the true Successour of St. Peter and Head of the whole Church of God which hath in part been proved already by our Catalogue of chief Pastours who were all Popes of Rome and by the Councils of all Ages approved by them and owning them for such and is yet farther proved thus Answ THat Peter was Pope of Rome hath been said but never yet proved but by the tradition of the Ancients who might be as easily deceived in that as they were about Christ's age the keeping of Easter and many other things Those very men who relate Peter's sitting at Rome as Bishop do not agree about his immediate Successour whether Linus or Clemens or Cletus as H. T. confesseth here pag. 52. And the relation it self is so inconsistent with that which Paul saith that by consent he and Peter agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and had the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to him his not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans his being at Antioch and according to Luke and Paul in other places so long a time as they mention in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians makes it altogether improbable that he should be Bishop at Rome such a time as they say he was and be put to death in Nero's time as the tradition insisted on bears in hand Nor was it agreeable to Peter's Office appointed by Christ to be as a fixed Pastour in one Place And if he were settled in any place it is more probable it was at Antioch where Paul mentions him to have been than at Rome nor of his translation of his Seat from Antioch to Rome is there any proof but what is by such tradition as in this and other things appears to be very uncertain and unlikely Yet were it yielded that Peter was Bishop or chief Pastour how will it be proved that he was to have a Successour Paul it is certain was at Rome and did while he was there undoubtedly execute the Office of a Pastour yet Popes do not challenge themselves to be Paul's but Peter's Successours however they put Paul's Sword in their Arms with Peter's Keys and in their Writings say the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul and use Paul's name with Peter's in their Sentences

which Paul counts himself a Master-builder that built not on Peter 's foundation or any others Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel and consequently the building of the Church Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel 3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows that the building of the Church is by Doctrine and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it not of Rule or Dominion Yea the Council of Trent it self Sess 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and thereby intimates the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine 4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire No where is a Prince said to edifie but Prophets Apostles and other Teachers nor is Excommunication Ordination calling of Councils and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification but teaching and reproving 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church Matth. 16. 18. 5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter but of what Christ would do by him and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power but of singular work 6. The end of the power which the Pope claims is for the exalting of himself and his visible Monarchy but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter but the use of him for setting up his Church The Popes power is as all experience witnesseth for the destruction of the Church not for edification and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18. If any say How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him I answer in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching as Acts 2. 3. 4. 10. appears and seems to be observed by Peter as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other though afterwards he chose Paul who did labour more abundantly than the rest 1 Cor. 15. 10. 2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them is proved 1. From Ephes 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building and it is Christ and not Peter in whom all the Building is fitly framed together 2. From Revel 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations and not one singular one supporting the rest but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles none of whom is the Foundation of the rest 3. That the term Church Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible is proved 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it 2. In that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish 4. That my Church Matth. 16. 18. is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter but that cannot be true sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul and he denies he built on anothers Foundation Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself sith Peter was part of the universal Church and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter which are absurd Which things being evinced it appears 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had and so belongs not to any Successour 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship pag. 75. for that Christ expresly forbade but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel recompensing his readiness to acknowledge Christ And this Christ had elsewhere promised Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of m●n Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built we would most gladly it were true that the Pope were such we should then honour him and kiss his Toe but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which the Pope is painted with as having them in his hands and by which he was wont to claim his power But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims sith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution the Keys are in their hands and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope therefore I need not insist on that here sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it SECT IV. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church But he adds And for a Reward of Peter's special dilection for he loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles he said to him Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. a Commission to feed all without exception Answ THe Argument seems to be this He to whom as a Reward of his special dilection by which he loved Christ more tha● all the rest of the Apostles Christ said Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. and thereby gave him a Commission to feed all without exception was Pastour of the whole Flock But this was Peter Ergo. Here four things are supposed whereof not one is true 1. That Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles For neither were all the rest of the Apostles there nor doth Christ or Peter say he did love Christ more than they did but onely puts a question which may either have this sense Lovest

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 no● 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 speeche● 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 ●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 b●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

is manifest that he makes Ro●● no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubian●m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock