Of Schism, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romaniſt againſt the Church of England examined, and firſt that from the Biſhop of Romes Supremacy by Chriſts donation to S. Peter.
§. 1. THE Scene being thus prepared, and the nature and ſorts of Schiſme defined and ſummarily enumerated, our method now leads us to inquire impartially, what evidences are producible againſt the Church of England, whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schiſme, And theſe pretended evidences may be of ſeveral ſorts, according to the ſeveral Species of this ſort of Schiſme deſcribed, and acknowledged by us.
§. 2.The firſt charge againſt us, Our caſting out the Popes Supremacy. The firſt evidence that is offered againſt us is taken from a preſumed Supremacy of the Biſhop of Rome, as Succeſſor to S. Peter, over all Churches in the world, which being in the dayes of Henry VIII. renounced, and diſclaimed, firſt by both Ʋniverſities, and moſt of the greateſt and famous Monaſteries of this kingdome (in their negative anſwer and determination of this queſtion, An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat pluſquam alii cuiquam Epiſcopo extero? Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England, more then any other forein Biſhop hath) and that determination of theirs teſtified under their hands and ſcales, and after by Act of Convocation ſubſcribed by the Biſhops and Clergy, and confirmed by their corporal oaths, and at laſt the like impoſed by Act of Parliament, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1. all this is looked on, and condemn'd, as an Act of Schiſme in this Church and Nation, in renouncing that power of S. Peters Succeſſors placed over all Chriſtians by Chriſt.
§. 3. This objection againſt us conſiſting of many branches, every of which muſt be manifeſted or granted to have truth in it, or elſe the objection will be of no force, 1. the matter of fact, that thus it was in England; 2. the conſequence of that fact, that it were Schiſme, ſuppoſing theſe Succeſſors of S. Peter were thus ſet over all Chriſtians by Chriſt. 3. the matter of fact again, that S. Peters Succeſſors were thus conſtituted Ʋniverſal Paſtors by Chriſt; This again of two branches, 1. that S. Peter was ſo conſtituted, 2. that the power inſtated on S. Peter devolved on the Biſhops of Rome; I ſhall endevour to expedite this matter by granting, and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two firſt branches, and leave the iſſue of the debate to their manifeſting the truth, or our manifeſting the falſhood of (the laſt mentioned, but indeed) the principal fundamental part of the contention, as it conſiſts of two branches, one as it reſpects S. Peter, the other as it reſpects his Succeſſor in the See of Rome; wherein if the Romaniſts pretenſions ſhall appear to have truth in them, we muſt be acknowledged by breaking off from our ſubmiſſion to that See, to be formally Schiſmaticks according to the grounds allready laid, and acknowledged by us; But on the other ſide, if their pretenſions herein ſhall appear to be falſe ▪ or unſufficiently proved and manifeſted, there is no other branch of the argument, be it never ſo true, which can give the concluſion any authority with any pondering rational man, it being in the power of any weak link to deſtroy the uſefulneſſe of the whole chain, and conſequent to the falſeneſſe, or inevidence of any one propoſition, that the concluſion ſhall not be inferred by that arguing.
§. 4.The Supremacy of S. Peter examined. And firſt for the pretenſion as far as it reſpects S. Peter, and muſt be managed by evidences, and ſo concluded either on one ſide or the other, I ſhall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative.
§. 5 Evidences againſt it. Firſt from his being Apoſtle of the Circumciſion peculiarly.And firſt it is evident by Scripture, that this Apoſtle was the Apoſtle of the circumciſion, or Jewes excluſively to the uncircumciſion, or Gentiles, which were generally anothers Province; By Apoſtle here I underſtand a Commiſſioner of Chriſts, endued with authority by him, and this Commiſſion given to him, as to all the other Apoſtles, indefinitely, and unlimitedly, not reſtrained by Chriſts words to any particular Province, but extending equally to the whole world; what therefore is done in this kind is by Subſequent act of the Apoſtles themſelves, who are teſtified to have done that, which it had been very unskilful, and improvident, and conſequently unreaſonable not to have done, viz. diſtributed their Ʋniverſal great Province inro ſeveral foreign Act. 1.25. diſtributions, or Lots, or leſſer Provinces, one or more to goe one way, the other another, which is there called by S. Peter foreign, to go to his own, or proper place, or aſſignation, for the witneſſing the Reſurrection, and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Chriſt to the world.
§. 6. Now if the circumciſion, or Jewiſh Chriſtians were peculiarly S. Peters Province, the lot, or diviſion aſſigned unto him, (agreeable unto which it is, that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria, and his Epiſtles are both of them addreſſed to the Jewes of the diſperſion, and none elſe) then it is not imaginable, how he ſhould be the Ʋniverſal, or Supreme Paſtor, or Biſhop of the whole world: For the Chriſtians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles, the Jewes again either thoſe that remained in their countrey, or thoſe that were diſperſed in other regions, there was but one portion of one of theſe, which can reaſonably be placed under S. Peters Juriſdiction. The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immediately ſubject to the ſeveral Biſhops in each city, and all they to their Metropolitane, James the Biſhop of Jeruſalem; Of this James the brother (or neer kinſman) of Chriſt, many aforeign. Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7. ex Sentententiâ Chryſoſtomi. foreign, Photius Epiſt. foreign. So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38.of the Ancients affirm, that he was by Chriſt after his reſurrection conſtituted Biſhop there; bforeign. Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. l. 2. c. foreign.others that it was done by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; cforeign. Euſeb. ex Clement: foreign. l. 5▪ foreign. Hegeſippus foreign. ap. Euſeb. l. 2. c. foreign. Euſeb. l. 2. c. foreign. vide Athan. in Synopſ. Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyſſen. de Reſur. Or. 2. Hieron. in Gal. 1. & in Catal. Euſeb. in Chron. p. 43.others the more ancient, that the Apoſtles conſtituted him in that See, Peter, James, and John, the three moſt honoured by Chriſt, conferring this honour upon him, whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John, Gal. 2.9. and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Jeruſalem, where S. Peter is preſent, and accordingly gives the Sentence, Act. 15.19. upon which the Reſcript is grounded, v. 22. From all which as it appeareth, that the Juriſdiction in that Metropolis (which had extended very far among the Jewes, not only to all Judaea, but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions, ſaith Agrippa in aforeign—foreign —.Philo, as hath formerly been mentioned) belonged to James the Juſt, and not to S. Peter, So it is as evident, that it was not by S. Peter alone intruſted to him (which might conclude ſome peculiar tranſcendent power of S. Peter there) but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter, which quite takes off all pretenſion of his to the ſingular Supremacy there.
§. 7.The Gentiles were not S. Peters Province. So again for the uncircumciſion or Gentile Chriſtians, they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's (by S. Peter's own confeſſion and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7.) who is therefore ſtyled the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, Rom. 11.13. and that without any commiſſion received, or conſequently dependence from S. Peter, as he declares and conteſts it, Gal. 1.12.17. having his aſſignation immediately from Chriſt, v. 16. Accordingly whenſoever thoſe two great Apoſtles came to the ſame city, the one conſtantly applied himſelf to the Jewes, received diſciples of ſuch, formed them into a Church, left them, when he departed that region, to be governed by ſome Biſhop of his aſſignation: and the other in like manner did the ſame to the Gentiles.
§. 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch, where S. Peter converted the Jewes, and S. Paul the Gentiles (and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate, or dependent on him, as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed, Gal. 2.11.) and acordingly in Ignatius his Epiſtle to the Magneſians we read of the Church of Antioch, that it was foreign founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, not by one, or other, but by both, and in the ancient, if not Ignatian Epiſtle to the Antiochians, You, ſaith he, foreign, have been the diſciples of Peter and Paul, i. e. converted and ruled by them, the Jewiſh part by one, and the Gentile by the other, and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch, and Syria (of which Antioch was the chief city) and Cilicia, is it, to which peculiarly the decrees of the Councel at Jeruſalem are ſent, Act. 15.23. and inſcribed [foreign—foreign, To the brethren at Antioch—thoſe of the Gentiles] and that ſeparately from the Jewiſh Church in that city or region, as is evident both by the contents of that Reſcript, or Decretal Epiſtle, in which only the Gentiles were concerned, v. 28, 29. and alſo by that which we read of S. Peter, and the Jewiſh proſelytes, Gal. 2.11. that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Chriſtians, upon which S. Paul reproved him publickly v. 12. According to this condition of diſparate, not ſubordinate Churches at Antioch, it is, that the writer of the Apoſtolical conſtitutions tells us, that Euodius and Ignatius at the ſame time ſate Biſhops of Antioch, one ſucceeding S. Peter, the other S. Paul, one in the Jewiſh, the other in the Gentile congregation, and ſo continued a while, till both the Churches (the wall of Separation being by compliance and Chriſtian Charity removed) joined, and united together under Ignatius, who therefore as by aHom. 4. in Luc.Origen and bl. 2. c. foreign.Euſebius he is called the Second, ſo by S. Hierome is called the third Biſhop of Antioch, and yet as truly by cde Syn. Arim. & Seleuc.Athanaſius foreign ſaid to be conſtituted Biſhop after the Apoſtles, and by dEx com. Ignat.S. Chryſoſtome to the ſame purpoſe (foreign—) that the bleſſed Apoſtles hands were laid upon him, whil'ſt yet Theodoret (foreign) affirms him to have received the Archiſacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter.
§. 9. The ſame is as evident at Rome where theſe two great Apoſtles met again, and each of them erected and managed a Church, S. Peter of Jewes, S. Paul of Gentiles. So ſaith el. 3. c. 3. Euſeb. l. 4. c. 6.S. Irenaeus, foreign — the bleſſed Apoſtles founded and built the Church there; and fl. 1. adv. Carpocrat.Epiphanius more expreſſely, foreign foreign, Peter and Paul were Apoſtles and Biſhops in Rome: So the Inſcription on their Tombes, which, ſaith al. 2. c. foreign.Euſebius, continued to his time, mentions them both as founders of that Church. So Gaius an Eccleſiaſtick writer of great antiquity, coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus, ſpeaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul, calls them bEuſeb. Ibid.foreign the monuments of them that founded that Church.
§. 10. So Dionyſius the Biſhop of Corinth, who lived about 20 years after their death, affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth, cEuſeb. Ibid.foreign, that it was (each of them) the plantation of Peter and Paul; And dDe Prom. & Praedict: implend: c. 5.Proſper, Petrus & Paulus Apoſtoli in urbe Româ—Peter and Paul the Apoſtles conſecrated or conſtituted a Church in the city of Rome. And the very Seales of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the ſame, as they are ſet down by Mathew Paris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae, ſaith he, ſtat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio bullae figuratae, & Petri à ſiniſtris; In the Bull of the Pope ſtands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Croſſe, which is graven in the midſt of the Seal, and the image of S. Peter on the left hand; and this only account given for S. Pauls having the nobler place (Quia Paulus credidit in Chriſtum quem non vidit, à dextris figuratur) becauſe he believed on Chriſt without ſeeing him (here on earth) And all this very agreeable to the ſtory of Scripture, which as (according to the brevity of the relations there made) it only ſets down S. Peter to be the Apoſtle of the circumciſion (and of his being ſo at Rome we make no queſtion) So it affirms of S. Paul, that he preached at Rome in his own hired houſe, receiving them which came unto him, Act. 28.30. which will moſt fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city, the Jewes having ſolemnly departed from him v. 29.
§. 11. Accordingly in Ignatius, Ep. ad Trall. we read of Linus and Clemens, that one was S. Paul's, the other S. Peter's Deacon, both which afterward ſucceeded them in the Epiſcopal chaire, Linus being conſtituted Biſhop of the Gentile, Clemens of the Jewiſh Chriſtians there; And hence growes (unqueſtionably) that variety, or difference obſerved among writers, ſome making S. Peter, others S. Paul the founder of that Church, but others (as hath been ſhewed) both of them; ſome making Clemens, others Linus the firſt Biſhop after the Apoſtles, both affirmers ſpeaking the truth, with this Scholion to interpret them: Linus was the firſt Biſhop of the Gentile Chriſtians, after S. Paul; Clemens the firſt of the Jewiſh after S. Peter; and after Linus his death, Cletus (or Anacletus) ſucceeding him, and dying alſo, both congregations were at length joyned in one, under Clemens; by which one clew I ſuppoſe it eaſie to extricate the Reader out of the mazes, into which the ancient writers may lead him, in rehearſing the firſt Biſhops of Rome ſo very diverſly, but this is not a place to inſiſt on it.
§. 12. By all which it appears that even in thoſe Churches, whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder, as that of Rome, and the like, yet he cannot be deemed the ſole founder, but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile, as he of the Jewiſh Proſelytes: and if the ſole government of that Church be devolved to the original, it will be found to have begun in Clemens, in whom the union of the Jewiſh and Gentile congregations there was firſt made, and not in S. Peter.
§. 13. But then for another great part of the Chriſtian world, it is manifeſt that S. Peter had never to doe either mediately, or immediately in the planting, or governing of it, and conſequently that from him that power can never deſcend to any other. Not to mention the travailes and labours, and plantations of the other Apoſtles; which certainly had each their foreign and foreign, and conſequently their Provinces by Apoſtolical joynt conſent aſſigned them Act. 1. (though that ſhort Hiſtory written by S. Luke, S. Paul's attendant, mention them not) I ſhall only inſiſt on the beloved Diſciple his fellow-Apoſtle of the Circumciſion, and that abundant Labourer S. Paul.
§. 14. Nor all the Circumciſion.For S. John, who had the favour of Chriſt, and the dignity of place before all others in Chriſt's life time, even before S. Peter himſelf (which is the plain meaning of his ſtyle of the beloved Diſciple, and of the foreign leaning on his breaſt at ſupper Joh. 21.20. his having the foreign, the firſt place next to Chriſt, as being in Abrahams boſome plainly ſignifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful) 'tis evident that he is one of thoſe that by agreement went to the Circumciſion, was aſſigned the Jewes Not the Jewes of Aſia,for his Province, as well as S. Peter, and conſequently he had the converting, and then governing of all the converted Jewes of that Lydian Aſia, and placing Biſhops over them, as aforeign — foreign. ap. Euſeb. l. 3. c. foreignClemens Alexandrinus, and bforeign Ibid.Euſebius, and cJoannes apud Epheſum Eccleſiā ſacravit. De Prom. & Praed. impl. c. 5.Proſper, and others tell us; and the dPhot. Bib. num. 254.Author of the Martyrdome of Timothy ſaith of him, that being returned from his baniſhment by Nerva's decree, foreign—he placed his ſeat of reſidence in Epheſus, and having ſeven Biſhops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis, that is in effect, or by interpretation, of all Aſia, which was under that prime Metropolis, as far as extended to the Jewiſh Chriſtians there.
As neither the Gentiles there.§. 15. But then as before was ſaid of the ſeveral Churches and Biſhops in the ſame place, one of the diſperſed Jewes, the other of Gentiles; ſo it is evident that through all this Aſia (the Lydian or Proconſular) the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part, and by him S. Timothy conſtituted Biſhop there: and ſo ſaith S. Chryſoſtome, Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19.foreign, a whole intire nation, that of Aſia was intruſted to him.
§. 16. Where I ſhall demand of any man of the Romiſh pretenſions, or perſwaſion, what can be ſaid, in any degree probably, for S. Peters Ʋniverſal Paſtorſhip, whilſt he lived, over this Aſia, whoſe ſeven Metropoles (and ſure there were inferior Churches, or Epiſcopal Sees under them) are ſo early famous, being honoured with Chriſts-Epiſtle to them in the Revelation; was S. Peter the ſupreme Paſtor of theſe Churches? had he any, or did he ever exerciſe, or pretend any Juriſdiction over them? was not all the Jewiſh part of that Province ultimately under S. John? and the Gentile part under S. Paul, and S. Timothy conſtituted, and commiſſionated by him? Doth not S. Paul give him full inſtructions (and ſuch as no other Apoſtle could countermand, or interpoſe in them) leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions, ſave only to himſelf, when he ſhall come to him, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. Did not S. Paul by his own ſingle power delegate that Province to him, and ſeat him there? (as appears by the foreign, I exhorted or appointed thee, when I went to Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3.) and may it not as reaſonably be ſaid that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia, as that he joyned with him in giving that Commiſſion to Timothy?
§. 17.Nor in Crete, And ſo likewiſe of Titus in Crete, was he not by S. Paul peculiarly left in Crete, and conſtituted Primate there? Is it imaginable that under Chriſt there could be any head of that Church of that whole Iſland, ſave only S. Paul?
§. 18. Nor in Britannie.The ſame may certainly be ſaid of all the Gentile Churches in all other Iſlands, and parts of the world, and conſequently in this of Britannie, wherein our preſent debate is terminated: And therefore if that of *de Petr: & Paul: ad diem 29. Junii. foreign.Simeon Metaphraſtes ſhould be thought to have truth in it, that S. Peter was in Britannie ſome time and baptized many into the faith of Chriſt, and conſtituted Churches, ordaining Biſhops and Preſbyters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero, in all reaſon it muſt be extended no farther then S. Peters line, as he was the Apoſtle of the Circumciſion, i. e. to the Jewes that might at that time be diſperſed here, and ſo not prejudge the other more authentick relations, of Joſeph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Iſland.
§. 19. This I ſuppoſe is one competent proof of the Negative, as it reſpects the perſon of S. Peter, that he was not (could not be, as things ſtood with him) Ʋniverſal Paſtor of the whole Church, conſtituted by Chriſt. And accordingly we ſee in Proſper diſputing againſt hereticks: which divide from the Church, he expreſſes it by relictâ pace communionis, Proſpers teſtimony to this matter.& panis unius Dei & Apoſtolorum, that they leave the Communion of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the plural, and adds cum in ipſâ Hieruſalem Jacobus— Joannes apud Epheſum, Andreas & caeteri per totam Aſiam, Petrus & Paulus Apoſtoli in urbe Româ, Gentium Eccleſiam pacatam unámque poſteris tradentes, ex Dominicâ pactione ſacrarunt, that James in Jeruſalem, John at Epheſus, Andrew and the reſt through all Aſia, Peter and Paul at Rome conſecrated the Church of the nations. Whereas the Church had the ſeveral Apoſtles for the founders (and thoſe independent one from the other) So the unity from which hereticks, and ſchiſmaticks depart, is ſaid to have been founded equally in each of them, in John and James and Andrew and others, as well as in S. Peter, nay at Rome, not in S. Peter alone, but in him and S. Paul, together.
§. 20.A ſecond evidence againſt S. Peters ſupremacy from the donation of the keyes. In the next place another evidence we may have of this (in reference again to S. Peters perſon) from that which is viſible in the donation of the power of the Keyes ſet down in Scripture. This power Mat. 16.19. is promiſed to S. Peter, [I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on earth ſhall be bound in heaven—] But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and conſequent power, as a peculiarity and incloſure of S. Peters, theſe conſiderations will be of force to ſuperſede his concluſion, 1. That theſe words here ſet down by S. Matthew, c. 16. are not the Inſtrument of Chriſts conveyance, the words of his commiſſion, but thoſe other Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath ſent me, Power of the keyes given to all and each.ſo ſend I you, upon which words it is added, he breathed on them, and ſaid, Receive the holy Ghoſt, Whoſe ſins you remit, they are remitted— And theſe (as alſo thoſe Mat. 28.19. which are a repetition much to the ſame purpoſe) are delivered in common, and equally to all, and every of the eleven Apoſtles, as is evident by the plural ſtyle throughout that Commiſſion.
§. 21. Secondly, The words Mat. 16. are only a promiſe in the future, what Chriſt will afterward do, and ſo the donation there ſet down only by way of foreign, or anticipation, and if the making this promiſe to him peculiarly, ſeem to make any thing for him, then the repetition of that promiſe, Mat. 18.18. which is made to all the Apoſtles indefinitely will take off that appearance, where it is foreign, and, foreign, I ſay unto you (to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of reſtriction) whatſoever ye ſhall bind &c. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one ſpecial energie in it, and concludes that the Eccleſiaſtical power of oeconomy or ſtewardſhip in Chriſt's houſe (of which the keyes are the token Iſa. 22.21.) belongs to ſingle perſons, ſuch as S. Peter was, and not only to Conſiſtories, or aſſemblies, that whatſoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Chriſts power thus promiſed, he ſhould be fully able to act himſelf, without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did (clave non errante) no one (or more men) on earth could reſcind without him, which is a juſt ground of placing the power Eccleſiaſtical in Single perſons, and not in Communities, in the Prelate of each Church, and not in the Presbytery. But ſtill this is no confining of this power to S. Peter, any more then to any other ſingle Apoſtle, who had this power as diſtinctly promiſed to each of them, as here S. Peter is pretended, and acknowledged to have; To which purpoſe, as the words of Scripture are moſt clear Mat. 18.18. (and accordingly Mat. 19. the promiſe is again made of twelve thrones for each Apoſtle to ſit on one, to judge, i. e. to rule, or preſide in the Church, and when that promiſe was finally performed in the deſcent of the Spirit, Act. 2. the fire that repreſented that Spirit was divided, and foreign ſat upon every one of them, without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter, and they were all filled with the holy Ghoſt, and ſo this promiſe equally performed, as it was made, to all) ſo is this exactly the notion, which the ancient Fathers of the Church appear to have had of them;in Mat. 18. Thus Theophylact according to S. Chryſoſtomes ſenſe, foreign, [foreign] foreign, Though the words [I will give thee] were delivered to S. Peter alone, yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apoſtles. Epiſt. 27.S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpoſe, Dominus noſter— Epiſcopi honorem & Eccleſiae ſuae rationem diſponens in Evangelio loquitur, & dicit Petro, Ego tibi dice, Quia tu es Petrus, & tibi dabo claves— Inde per temporum & ſucceſſionum vices Epiſcoporum ordinatio & Eccleſiae ratio decurrit, ut Eccleſia ſuper Epiſcopos conſtituatur, & omnis actus Eccleſiae per eoſdem gubernetur, Chriſt meaning to ſet down the way of ordering his Church, ſaith unto Peter, I will give thee the keyes— From this promiſe of his, the ordination of Biſhops and courſe of the Church hath continued by all ſucceſſions and viciſſitudes, So that the Church is built upon Biſhops (in the plural) and every Eccleſiaſtick act is governed by them. So S. Ambroſe, De Dign. Sacerd. c. 5. & 6.Claves illas regni Coelorum in beato Petro cuncti ſuſcepimus Sacerdotes, All we Biſhops have in S. Peter received thoſe keyes of the kingdome of heavens. Ep. ad Dracont.And accordingly S. Athanaſius mentions the office of Biſhop as one of thoſe things foreign, which Chriſt effigiated or formed in or by the Apoſtles; And S. Baſil the great calls Epiſcopacy foreign, the Preſidency of the Apoſtles, the very ſame, that Chriſt beſtowed upon all, and not only on one of them.
§. 23. By all which it is evident again, that the power which Chriſts commiſſion inſtated on S. Peter, was in like manner intruſted to every other ſingle Apoſtle, as well as to him, and conſequently that this of univerſal Paſtor was no perſonal privilege, or peculiarity of S. Peters.
§. 24. The Romaniſts argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated.Thirdly, that argument which is taken by learned Romaniſts from the name of Peter [foreign a Rock or foundation ſtone] beſtowed on him by Chriſt, as if that were ſufficient to found this pretended Supremacy, is preſently evacuated, and retorted on the pretenders, when 'tis remembred 1. that foreign, and foreign, directly the ſame, ſignifies vulgarly a ſtone (foreign, in Homers Iliad. foreign.) and of it ſelf denotes no more, but by the context, Mat. 16.18. being applied to a building muſt needs ſignifie a foundation ſtone; and then 2. that all the 12 Apoſtles are in like manner (and not he only, or above any other) ſtyled foreign, twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14. each of which ſtones having the name of an Apoſtle on it, in reſpect of the power, and dignity that belonged to every one, is ſeverally compared to a precious ſtone; And it being there in viſion apparent, that the wall of the city, i. e. of the Church, being meaſured exactly, and found to be an hundred fourty four, i. e. twelve times twelve cubits, 'tis evident that that menſuration aſſignes an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apoſtles which is again a prejudice to the Ʋniverſal Paſtorſhip of any one of them.