brethren; but the church may be the one body of Christ, without being one ecclesiastical body under one governing head, which it is impossible the whole christian church should ever be; therefore if divisions happen among bishops and churches of the same ecclesiastical body, they may both continue true churches still. For they are united to Christ by the true faith, worship and discipline, and if the contending churches may both retain these, the external peace of the church is broken, which is a very great crime and will fall heavy upon the authors of it; yet still they may be united in Christ's mystical body, and remain parts of the catholic church.

Thus, the communion of the church of Rome was denied to the churches of Asia in Victor's time, and to the churches of Africa and Asia in St. Cyprians days; thus, the differences between the eastern and the western churches, &c. yet both of these divided communions remained parts of the catholic church; but to appropriate the title of the one catholic church to any one of the divided parties, so as to exclude the rest, was to be guilty of the same presumption with the Novatians and Dona tists, and was as much the cause of the schisms, which happen thereupon in the church, as they were.

com

But if a church has just and necessary reasons for dividing itself from that ecclesiastical body, to which it once belonged, it is wholly blameless, nay, mendable for doing so; therefore whatever jurisdiction or primacy is pretended to have been formerly granted by ancient councils to the bishop of Rome, may be retrenched or denied without the guilt of schism when it swells into a boundless and unlimited authority, to the oppression of the whole christian church in her essential rights and liberties, and serves only to justify and perpetuate the most notorious and intolerable corruptions of the christian religion*.

As for General Councils, there is no necessity of them to catholic communion; the christian churches were from the beginning one, and maintained a very strict alliance with each other, for above three hundred years wi hout them: and catholic communion was, better preserved then, than ever it has been since, which is a demonstration that such a supreme governing power over the whole church is not necessary to catholic communion, for then catholic communion could never have been maintained

But the Romanists pretend that it is essential to catholic communion to be subject to the BISHOP of ROME, as the universal head and monarch of the church. "We define, says their general council of Florence, that the holy apostolic see and bishop of Rome is invested with the primacy over the whole world, and that the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole church, and the father and doctor of all christians, and that the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole church was given to him in St. Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is expressed or contained in the acts of general councils, and in the holy canons.

*This then being the true state of their doctrine concerning their pope's power or supremacy, and that which I would call naked popery, I am sure I have a commission from the church of England to declare, that she cannot, without betraying the rights of all bishops, and the interest of the catholic church, espouse the doctrine of the bishop of Rome's supremacy; which we of her communion do believe is altogether without foundation, either from scripture or primitive antiquity.

CHAP. IX.

The supremacy of the bishop of Rome, confuted from the Scriptures.

f

Now the bishop of Rome, claims a supremacy over the whole christian church, because it is pretended that our Saviour made the apostle St. Peter, the head and supreme governor of the whole church. This we deny, having undeniable proofs that ALL the APOSTLES were placed by Christ in EQUAL POWER and AUTHORITY over

without it; and yet, thus it was in St. Cyprian's time, who was as zealous an assertor of catholic communion, as any before or since.

Dr. Gee's vindication of answer to Nubes Testium, 1688.

his church The arguments on which St. Peter's pretended supremacy and authority over the other apostles is founded, are of two kinds. 1. Such words of Christ as seem to imply or give this authority. 2. Some great privileges granted to St. Peter.*

I. Such words of Christ as seem to imply or give this power; and these are, two texts of scripture, viz. Matth. 16. 18, 19. John 21. 15.

St. Matthew relates, that upon St. Peter's having confessed our Saviour to be the the Son of God; Christ said to him," thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church, &c. and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."-Now were we to consider this passage by itself, without adverting to what is its proper comment, the subsequent conduct of Peter, and the other apostles, yet even then it would be difficult to contend, that our Lord's saying was to be applied exclusively to Peter. For the question which led to this, was put to all the apostles, and Peter when he answered, must, according to fair construction, be considered as answering in the name of all. † There is nothing particular to Peter, but that he is addressed by name, and that to his name our Lord makes an immediate allusion. As to what is meant by the word "rock," which the Romanists interpret as making Peter the gover

Bishop Patrick's exam. of texts for supremacy-and his Sermon on St. Peter's day, against Godden, 1688. Dr. Stratford's discourse of the pope's supremacy, part 1. (in answer to St. Peter's supremacy discussed by Cleuch, and Godden's Sermon,) 1688. Le Mesurier's Bampton lectures, 1808, p. 174. Gee's answer to Nubes testium, 1688, and Collins's defence of bishop Andrews's Tortura Torti, 1617.

+ Petrus, super quem ædificata ecclesia unus pro omnibus loquens, et ecclesiæ vice respondens, Cyprian, Ep. 55. and this he explains in another place," inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum et ecclesiæ decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiæ per eosdem præpositos gubernetur." From these words spoken to Peter, he infers not a jurisdiction given to him, and his successors, but a government resting upon all bishops equally. Austin's "cui ecclesia figuram gerenti dixit dominus, super hanc, &c. Ep. 53. Jerom's are "Petrus personâ omnium apostolorum profitetur," in loc and afterwards when speaking of giving the keys, he applies it not at all to Peter, but to the bishops in general.

words are,

:

nor of the church; it may be sufficient to say, that very few of the fathers interpret it as applying to Peter. The famous M. Launoy, Dr. of the Sorbonne has collected near fifty sentences from the fathers, in which the rock is applied not to Peter, but to Christ, or the faith confessed concerning Christ, which come to the same thing. So that if the interpretation of above fifty fathers and church writers, among whom there are 11 pope's and 2 synods, be admitted against that of 3 or 4 fathers, we are sufficiently secured, that the interpretation of the rock, be. ing the faith confessed by Peter concerning Christ, (which is espoused by the church of England,) is true and catholic, and that to interpret it of Peter's person, is to contra. dict the stream of catholic antiquity.

I shall produce two passages omitted by Launoy, to show that that excellent person has not exhausted the subject. Epiphanius (adv. hær. lib. 2. p. 500. 1622.) brings in our Saviour saying to Peter, "that upon this rock of unshaken faith, I will build my church. St. Chrysostom (Sermo de pent. tom. 6. 233.) tells us that our Saviour said, “ upon this rock, not upon Peter, for he built his church not upon the man Peter, but upon the faith" which he confessed. And were this opinion erro. neous, yer it decidedly proves that at the time when the fathers wrote, that is, for 4 or 5 centuries after Christ, no such doctrine as this of the supremacy of Peter, was known in the church.

But supposing Peter to be the rock, yet what resem blance is there between a rock and a governor? Can our adversaries produce any instance, in which a supremacy of power was ever conferred, by comparing any person to a rock. And as cardinal Cusanus argues, if Peter was a foundation, all the apostles were equally founda tion stones," John 21.-Eph. 2. 20.

As for the other promise, that, "the keys, and the power of binding and loosing," (which are the same according to Bellarmin, and the Roman catechism,) should be given to Peter, we find that it was actually conferred on all the 12 apostles, to whom Christ bestowed it, without any distinction, John 20. 21, 23. In this text the words are spoken to the apostles, without any preference of Peter before the meanest of them. And accordingly when the Holy Ghost descended, it was im

parted to each of them alike without any mark of distinction, Acts 2. 3, 4. So that if we may explain our Lord's promise by its completion, what is promised to Peter by name, (because he had then spoken for them all, in answer to Christ's question proposed to the whole company,) was equally promised to all the rest.-If it be said, that there was something extraordinary conferred on Peter in this text, and that the other apostles did not receive this power till a short time before our Saviour ascended; I answer, that in the next chapter but one, our Saviour speaks to all the apostles as already invested with the power of the keys, Mat. 18. 17, 11; and this is agreeable to the opinion of the fathers, "who (as Dupin confesses, De. eccl. antiq. discip. dissert. 4. c. 1.) say with an unanimous consent, that the keys were given to the whole church in the person of Peter.” "St. Austin" particularly "inculcates this an hundred times" (as his words are); a proof of which may be seen in the epistles of Launoy, (ep. 73.) who has collected 26 places out of St. Austin's works, to show that he taught this" openly, frequently and constantly."

I cannot forbear to mention one of them, says bishop Patrick, because it affords us many considerable remarks as some things, (says Austin, Enarr. in psal. 108.) are spoken which may seem properly to belong to the apostle Peter, and yet have not a clear sense, but when they are referred to the church, whereof he is acknowledged to have represented the person in a figure, (because of the primacy, he had among the apostles) as that is, "I will give thee the keys," and if there be any like so Judas sustains, after a certain manner, the person of the Jews, the enemies of Christ, &c." Here the Romanists are very forward to catch at these words, which signify a place of priority, that Peter had among the Apostles, (which no one denies,) but are not willing to take any notice of the rest; which entirely overthrow that primacy, they would advance him unto from this place. For 1. he says some things, but seem to belong to Peter, which in truth ought to be referred to the church. 2. That their sense is not clear, till they be

See also Dr. Collins's Epphata to F. T. 1617. p. 12. in which St. Austin's opinion is fully explained.