endeavour to elude thofe words of St. Paul in the place before-named, 1 Cor. i 11. For it appears by this other place that St. Paul was a fecondary or minifterial Foundation, if we may fo fpeak; that is, fpeak improperly, meaning thereby one that laid the Foundation. Which he did as much as St. Peter, or any other Apoftle; nay, a great deal more, as he himself tells us, when he faith he laboured more abundantly than they all.

Col. 1.23,

In exact fpeaking, there is no Foundation on which the Church is built but Chrift alone (as St. Paul affures us) in whom all the Building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord; Ephef. ii. 21. But Faith in Chrift, being that whereby we are joyned to him, it may be called by the fame Name : and accordingly the Coloffians are faid to be grounded ** TM s πin the Faith, as upon a Foundation (the Greek word fignifies) from which he would have them not to be moved. And the Apostles (as he there faith) being the Preachers of this Faith, and the Inftruments whereby Men were brought to believe on Chrift, and fo joyned to him as Living Stones, are called by the Name of Foundation, in the place before-named; Ephef. ii. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, &c. But then, it is evident that Peter alone is not this Foundation, but all the Apostles. For there are XII Foundations (of this fort) as we read in Rev. xxi. 14. by whofe Ministry the Church was built upon Chrift; the fole Foundation (in proper fpeaking) that was laid for all to build upon..

Finally, the Apoftles underftand no fuch Preheminence, as is now pretended, to be promifed to St. Peters in these words; nor did he himself fo understand them, when the Holy Ghoft: was come upon them to

lead:

lead them into all Truth. For then St. Paul could not have faid, that he came not a whit behind the very chiefeft Apostles, and that he was behind them in nothing (2 Cor. xi. 5. & xii. 11.) nor could he have undertaken to correct St. Peter (Gal. ii. 11, 12, &c.) nor would St. Peter have born his Cenfure, if he had known he was the Head of the Church: but have bidden St. Paul know his distance; and remember that he ought not to controul him, but be controuled by him as his Better.

Secondly; After all this that hath been faid, to fhew there is nothing here promised to Peter, but what belongs to all the Apostles, except only that of his being imployed in laying the first Foundation of Faith among the Gentiles: It remains that I fhew there is nothing in the word Rock, which implies any Superiority of Power and Authority over the reft of his Brethren and the whole Church; if we fhould fuppofe this Promise to have been made to him alone; for it denotes nothing of Government; but hath refpect to the fupportand ftability of that Structure, which is firmly laid upon it. And therefore the ancient Doctors (as may be feen in the Sermon before-mentioned) give other Reasons of his being called a Rock, and not this; becaufe to him was committed the Government of the whole Church, efpecially about Faith. Which is the Explanation Bellarmine gives of this word, affirming it to be the fignification of this Metaphor: for it is proper to a fundamental Rock to govern and fuftain the whole Edifice. This is perfectly new Language, never heard of in the World before, that it is proper to a Foundation to govern; for it is altogether improper, and no body thinks of any fuch thing, when he reads of a Foundation. But if it be proper, then all the Apostles were Go

vernours

vernours of the whole Church, as well as he; because they were all Foundations, as was before obferved; having the very fame Power given to them by Christ, which, we now suppose, was here promised to him

alone.

de Pontif.

Unto which they of the Church of Rome have nothing to reply, but only this (whch is meerly a bold Affirmation, and as abfurd as all the reft) they were indeed all of them the Heads, Governors, and Paftors of the Church univerfal: but not after the fame manner as Peter was of *.* Bellarm. 1.1. Why fo? For they had the highest and most ample Power, as Rom. cap. xi. Apostles and Ambassadors; but Peter alfo as an ordinary Paftor. As much as to fay, They had indeed the highest Power in the Church, and as large as he, but not fo high a Power as his. Let any Man try, if he can make any other Senfe of those words; that is, find any Senfe at all in them. For was this Power of being an ordinary Paftor, greater than that of the Apostles, or no? If it were greater, then it is not true which he affirms, that the Apostles had the higheft Powert. If it were lefs + Habuerunt than the Power of the Apoftles, then they were all fummam Pogreater than he, as he was an ordinary Paftor: and then it is non-fense to fay, they fo had a plenitude of Power, as that St. Peter was notwithstanding the Head of them, and they all depended on him. For he rather depended on them, as an ordinary Paftor, if that was less than the Power of the Apostleship: and if it were not, but greater than it; then (as I faid) it is falfe, that the Apoftles had the higheft Power.

This is fufficient to fhew into what Abfurdities Men run, when they go about to maintain a Falfhood; and what wretched fhifts they devife to obfcure the clear Truth, which fhines in their Eyes: Which when they have done, they walk as in Darkness, and M

cannot

teftatem.

cannot be perfwaded to fee or acknowledg their Error. Nay, one Error grows out of another, and having begun to wrest the Holy Scripture, they go on to ftrain it, fo far as to extend it to any purpose they have to ferve by it.

:

For having prefumed that Peter, and he alone, is promised to be made the Governour of the whole Church, by thefe Words of our Saviour, they immediately prefume, without the fhew of a proof, that the Bishops of Rome fucceed him in this Authority. Which is a very large Step, or rather Leap, from Peter to the Popes of Rome, between whom there is fuch a vaft diftance, that it is impoffible to make out the Claim, to which they pretend from him. For there is no evidence that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, but only that he founded that Church, and fetled a Bishop there. For if he was Bishop of Antioch, it was against all antient Rules, to leave that, and go to another See. The truth is, he was properly Bishop of neither; but planted a Church in each and firft at Antioch, before he came to Rome. And who can think he did not fettle one to take care of that Church of Antioch, when he left it? who may be called his Succeffor, as well as he, whom he is fuppofed to have placed afterwards in Rome. Which two things being allowed, as unquestionable Matters of Fact, there is no reafon can be given why all the Power and Jurifdiction which is claimed upon the account of Succeffion, fhould not devolve by the Right of Primogeniture, upon the Bishop of Antioch fince it is confeffed he first fat there, and fat there feven Years, which is more than can be proved he did at Rome, where he was not when St. Paul came thither (Act. xxviii.) nor when he first answered before Nero, nor when he was ready to be offered, 2 Tim. iv. 6, 11, 16. nor can any certain

time be affigned when he was there, as we are fure St. Paul was, who is acknowledged to be a Founder of that Church, and had as much (or rather more) right to leave a Bishop to fucceed him there, as St. Peter; who could transfer to no body, neither there nor any where else, what was perfonally vested in him; as all the Priviledg here granted him was. Or, if he was to have any Succeffor in his fuppofed Dominion, there were others had a better Title to it, than the Bishop of Rome; particularly St. John, who it is certain furvived St. Peter. Therefore all that Bellarmine dare fay in this matter is, that the Apostles being dead, the Apoftoli- L. 1. de Pont. cal Authority remained in Peter's Succeffor alone. For which he gives us not one word of proof, but only this notorious Falfhood, that the Roman Bishop alone is called by all, the Apoftolical Bishop, and his See fimply the Apoftolical See. When all the World knows, Jerufalem, Conftantinople, and divers other Places are called by the fame Name of Apoftolical Sees, or Churches; and their Bishops called not only Apoftolical, but Catholick, and faid to be Bishops of the Catholick Church. The meaning of all which is nothing elfe, but that they held the Catholick Religion and Faith, as Launoy most ingenuously Epift. pars 1. confeffes, and maintains the Roman Bishops themselves ad Francifcum intended no more, when they fubfcribed themselves Bifhops of the Catholick Church.

Nay, Bellarmine himself, in the place now named, is constrained to acknowledg, that the Supreme Ecclefiaftical Power was given not only to Peter, but to other Apoftles allo. For they might all fay that of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 28. My daily business, the Care of all the Churches. But it was given to Peter as an ordinary Paftor, who should have perpetual Succeffors: to others as Delegates, who should have no Succeffors. Which is a meer Invention, a pure

M 2

1

Fig

Bonum.