PEINCIPLES OF PAPISTS ON THE UNITY OF FAITH. 285
S. Were it never so true, as it is notoriously false, yet it would not one jot promote your design. It is about Peter the apostle, and not the pope of Rome, that we are discoui'sing. Do you think a man can easily commence, " per saltum," from the imaginary principality of Peter, unto the infallibility of the present pope of Rome ? " Quid papa3 cum Petro?" what relation is there between the one and other? Suppose a man have so good a mind unto your company as to be willing to set out with you in this ominous stumbling at the threshold, what will you next lead him into ? You say, —
IL " That St Peter, besides his apostolical power and office (wherein, setting aside the prerogative of his princedom before men- tioned, the rest of the apostles were partakers with him), had also an oecumenical episcopal power invested in him, which was to be trans- mitted unto others after him," His office purely apostolical you have no mind to lay claim unto. It may be you despair of being able to prove that your pope is immediately called and sent by Christ; that he is furnished with a power of working miracles, and such other things as concurred to the constitution of the office apos- tolical. And perhaps himself hath but little mind to be exercised in the dischai'ge of that office, by travelling up and down, poor, despised, persecuted, to preach the gospel. Monarchy, ride, supremacy, au- thority, jurisdiction, infallibility, are words that better please him; and therefore have you mounted this notion of Peter's episcopacy, whereunto you would have us think that all the fine things you so love and dote upon are annexed. Poor, labouring, persecuted Peter the apostle, may die and be forgotten; but Peter the bishop), harnessed with power, principality, sovereignty, and vicarship of Christ, this is the man you inquire after : but you will have very hard work to find him in the Scripture, or antiquity, yea, the least footstep of him. And do you think, indeed, that this episcopacy of Peter, distinct from his apostleship, is a meet stone to be laid in the foundation of faith ? It is a thing that plainly overthrows his apostleship : for if he were a bishop, properly and distinctly, he was no apostle, — if an apostle, not such a bishop ; that is, if his care were confined unto any one church, and his residence required therein, as the case is with a proper bishop, how could the care of all the churches be upon him ? how could he be obliged to pass up and down the world in pursuit of his commis- sion of preaching the gospel unto all nations, or to travel up and down as the necessity of the churches did require ? But you will say that he was not bishop of this or that particular, but of the church imiversal ; but I supposed you had thought him bishop of the church of Rome, and that you will plead him afterward so to have been. And I must assure you that he that thinks the church of Rome, in the days of Peter and Paul, was the same with the church catholic, and not looked on [as being] as particular a church as that of Jerusalem, or Ephesus,
286 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
or Corinth, is a person with whom I will have as little to do as I can in this matter. For to what purpose should any one spend time to debate things with men absurd and unreasonable, and who will affirm that it is midnight at noon-day ? I know the apostolical office did include in it the power of all other offices in the church whatever, as the less are included in the greater; but that he who was an apostle should formally also be a bishop, though an apostle might exercise the whole power and office of a bishop, is sk tuv ddwdruv, — somewhat allied unto impossibilities. Do you see what a quagmire j'-ou are building upon ? I know if a man Avill let you alone, you will raise a structure, which, after you have painted and gilded, you may prevail with many harbourless creatures to accept of an habita- tion therein: for when you have laid your foundation out of sight, you will pretend that all your building is on a rock; whereas, indeed, you have nothing but the rotten posts of such suppositions as these to support it withal. But suppose that Peter was thus a prince, monarch, apostle, bishop, — that is, a catholic, particular officer, — what is that to you ? Why, —
III. " This Peter came and preached the gospel at Rome." Though you can by no means prove this assertion so as to make it " de fide," or necessarily to be believed of any one man in the world, much less to become meet to enjoy a place among those fundamentals that are tendered unto us to bring us unto settlement in religion, yet, being a matter very uncertain and of little importance, I shall not much contend with you about it. Witnesses merely human and fallible you have for it a great many; and exceptions almost without number may be put in against your testimonies, and those of great weight and moment. Now, although that which you affirm might be granted you without any real advantage unto your cause, or the enabling of you to draw any lawful inferences to uphold your papal claim by, yet, to let you see on what sorry, uncertain presumptions you build your faith and profession, and that in and about things which you make of indispensable necessity unto salvation, I shall in our passage remind you of some few of them, which, I profess seriously unto you, make it not only questionable unto me whether or no, but also some- what improbable, that ever Peter came to Rome.^ 1 . Though those