The TEXTS examined which Papists cite out of the Bible, TO PROVE The Supremacy of St. PETER and of the POPE over the whole Church.  

IMPRIMATUR.  
Guil. Needham. Febr. 14. 1687.   
THE Question to be debated in this Paper is, Whether the Apostle St. Peter was constituted by Christ himself, to be, in his stead, 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 his Church. But the Doctors of the Roman Church affirm this with so much Confidence, as to say; that to deny it, is not a simple Error, but a pernicious Heresy. They are the words of Bellarmine 
* L. 1. de Rom. Pontif. c. 10, 11. ; who earnestly contends that the Government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, especially about Matters of Faith.  
Which bold Assertion he labours to support three ways.  

First, By some places of Holy Scriptures.  
Secondly, By many Privileges and Prerogatives of St. Peter.  
Thirdly, By Testimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers.   
I am concerned only in the first of these Ways; in which if this Cause find no true support, we need not trouble ourselves about the other two: which are so weak, that some ingenuous Persons in their Communion have acknowledged, the Prerogatives are either feigned at pleasure, or no more to the purpose of his Supremacy, than the pretended Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, which are against it.  
Now the Scriptures which they allege for the proof of it, are two places in the holy Gospels. The one in St. Matthew xuj. 18, 19 the other in St. John xxi. 17. In the former of these this Supreme Authority, they say, is promised to St. Peter; in the latter it is conferred.  
I begin with the first, Matth. xuj. 18, 19 And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, etc. And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind o● Earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. The Sense of which words, says Bellarmine, is plain and obvious: giving us to understand, the Sovereignty over the whole Church to be here promised unto Peter, in two Metaphors. The one is a Metaphor of a Foundation and a Building: the other is a Metaphor of Keys. For what a Foundation is in the Building, that the Head is in the Body, the Governor in the City, the King in his Kingdom, and the Father of the Family in the House: and to whom the Keys of a City are delivered, he is appointed the King, or at least the Governor of that City; to admit and shut out whom he pleaseth.  
Unto which I have this to say, before I give the true Sense of these words: That to call this a plain and obvious Sense of the words, which is wrapped up in a couple of Metaphors, is to stumble at the very Threshold; and to contradict himself in the terms, as they ordinarily speak. For what is metaphorical, is not plain and obvious; but needs Explanation, by putting it into common words: Into which if these Metaphors be reduced, we shall find there is no such Sense contained in them, as is pretended.  
I shall explain them distinctly, and begin with the former part of this Promise, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: which we may call the first Proof they bring of St. Peter's being the Monarch of the Church.  
I. Which Sense is so far from being plain and obvious, that having considered both the words, and all the ancient Expositors upon them, I can find nothing plainer than these two things: First, That there is no certainty St. Peter is here meant by the Rock, upon which Christ saith he will build his Church: Nor, Secondly, If he were, that Christ intended by calling him a Rock, to make him the Lord of his Church.  
First, I say there is no Evidence that St. Peter is here meant by the Rock: but quite contrary, we are led by the general stream of Ancient Interpreters, to understand by the Rock upon which the Church is built, that Faith concerning Christ which Peter had newly confessed. There are more than two that thus expound the words, for one that expounds them otherwise: as may be seen in a Sermon lately printed on this Subject 
* Sermon on St. Peter's day. 1686. ; which shows also that the other Expositions do not really differ from this; but even they, who apply these words to St. Peter, had respect (in calling him the Rock) to his preaching the Doctrine of Christ; and having the honour to be the first Preacher of it to the Gentiles. Which is all the Privilege that can be thought to be peculiarly intended to him in these words. For, excepting this, whatsoever was said to him, was directed to all the Apostles; because Peter as their Mouth, spoke the Sense of them all, when he said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God; and therefore Christ's Answer was returned to them all, when he said, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church.  
As much as to say, Thou art what thy Name imports, which I have given thee with respect to this solid Faith thou hast now confessed: upon which, as upon a Rock, I will build my Church by your Ministry; and particularly by thine, who shalt have the Honour to lay the first Stone of it, in the Gentile World. Thus St. Austin 
† Tract. exxiv. in Joh. Serm. xiii. de verbis Dom, etc.  expounds the words in many places; where he observes Peter had his Name from Petra the Rock, viz. That Faith which he confessed, upon which Christ told him he would build his Church. For he doth not say, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church; but upon this Rock: which plainly relates to another thing, viz. that immovable Foundation, confessed by Peter, that he was Christ the Son of God. Whence those known words of the same Father, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee.  
If it were the intention of this Paper to quote Testimonies, I could name a great multitude, even the ordinary Gloss, which speak to the same purpose. But it is wholly needless, since the other Exposition which makes St. Peter the Rock here spoken of, is against the most unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church: which they of the Church of Rome are bound to follow both by the Doctrine of the Council of Trent 
* Sess. iv. , and by the form of that Oath of Profession of Faith which Pope Pius iv drew up and enjoined, according to the Mind of that Council. And yet (so vilely are some addicted to regard nothing but their Interest) there are those, who, to make these words sound as if Christ promised to build his Church upon Peter himself, have not blushed thus to translate them; Thou art Peter, and upon this PETER will I build my Church. So Dr. Allen would have had the Translation run in the Rhemish Testament: and so Hart alleges them in his Conference with Dr. Reynolds 
† Chap. 2. Divis. 1. . And now lately the Catholic Scripturist translates them after this manner, (according to the Language which Christ spoke) Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. As if it will be lawful for them to do any thing (even contradict that very Council, whose Decrees they are sworn to observe) that they may make the Scripture seem to be on their side. For the Council of Trent hath decreed the old Latin Translation to be authentical, with a prohibition that no Man dare or presume under any pretence to reject it. Notwithstanding which here are Men that presume to reform it, and to make a new Translation of their own Heads, as different from that authentic vulgar Translation as from ours: for in this ours and that are the same, as every body may know that understands the Latin Tongue.  
This is a Presumption with a Witness, to make their own Translation departed so far from the Language which Christ spoke, as to put tu es Petrus, instead of tu es Petra: For so Christ's words should have been translated, if they signified thou art a Rock, unless they can show us that Petrus, in any Author, is latin for a Rock. Till this be done, we must say that such Men, contrary to their Faith solemnly sworn, depart not only from Antiquity, but from themselves.  
And when they have done all they can, it will evidently appear, that the Church was not built by his Hands alone, (though he began, as I said, and laid the first Stone among the Gentiles) but by them all, and more especially by St. Paul, who was called late into this Office, 
1 Cor. xv. 10. & three 10, 11.  but laboured more abundantly than they all; and as a wise Master-builder laid the Foundation, upon which others built. Which Foundation, he tells us is Jesus Christ himself: who, he likewise says, is the only Foundation, and that no Man can lay other Foundation besides him. Which shows this Promise, I am treating of, had respect to all that had the Office of Apostles; and wholly ruins the Authority of St. Peter, upon which they would have the Church to be built. For if Jesus Christ be the only Foundation that can be laid, than Peter cannot be the Foundation: but only as a Minister of Jesus Christ, who helped to lay the Foundation, which is Christ himself and his Faith. In which Ministry he was no more employed than other Apostles; but St. Paul, who came last into this Ministry, was as wise a Master-builder as himself, and took more Pains than he or any of the rest: laying the Foundation where neither St. Peter, nor any Body else had ever been, lest he should build upon another Man's Foundation, as he tells the Roman Church, Rom. xv. 20.  
Which words utterly overthrow their vain distinction of a first, and a secondary Foundation, whereby they endeavour to elude those words of St. Paul in the place beforenamed, 1 Cor. three 11. For it appears by this other place that St. Paul was a secondary or ministerial Foundation, if we may so speak; that is, speak improperly, meaning thereby one that laid the Foundation. Which he did as much as St. Peter, or any other Apostle; nay, a great deal more, as he himself tells us, when he saith he laboured more abundantly than they all.  
In exact speaking, there is no Foundation on which the Church is built but Christ alone (as St. Paul assures us) in whom all the Building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord; Ephes. two. 21. But Faith in Christ, being that whereby we are joined to him, it may be called by the same Name: and accordingly the Colossians are said to be grounded 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Col. 1.23.  in the Faith, as upon a Foundation (the Greek word signifies) from which he would have them not to be moved. And the Apostles (as he there saith) being the Preachers of this Faith, and the Instruments whereby Men were brought to believe on Christ, and so joined to him as Living Stones, are called by the Name of Foundation, in the place beforenamed; Ephes. two. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, etc. But then, it is evident that Peter alone is not this Foundation, but all the Apostles. For there are XII Foundations (of this sort) as we read in Rev. xxi. 14. by whose Ministry the Church was built upon Christ; the sole Foundation (in proper speaking) that was laid for all to build upon.  
Finally, the Apostles understand no such Pre-eminence, as is now pretended, to be promised to St. Peter in these words; nor did he himself so understand them, when the Holy Ghost was come upon them to lead them into all Truth. For then St. Paul could not have said, that he came not a whit behind the very chiefest 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. two. 11, 12, etc.) nor would St. Peter have born his Censure, 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 control him, but be controlled by him as his Better.  
Secondly; After all this that hath been said, to show there is nothing here promised to Peter, but what belongs to all the Apostles, except only that of his being employed in laying the first Foundation of Faith among the Gentiles: It remains that I show there is nothing in the word Rock, which implies any Superiority of Power and Authority over the rest of his Brethren and the whole Church; if we should suppose this Promise to have been made to him alone; for it denotes nothing of Government; but hath respect to the support and stability of that Structure, which is firmly laid upon it. And therefore the ancient Doctors (as may be seen in the Sermon beforementioned) give other Reasons of his being called a Rock, and not this; because to him was committed the Government of the whole Church, especially about Faith. Which is the Explanation Bellarmine gives of this word, affirming it to be the signification of this Metaphor: for it is proper to a fundamental Rock to govern and sustain 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 such thing, when he reads of a Foundation. But if it be proper, than all the Apostles were Governors of the whole Church, as well as he; because they were all Foundations, as was before observed; having the very same Power given to them by Christ, which, we now suppose, was here promised to him alone.  
Unto which they of the Church of Rome have nothing to reply, but only this (which is merely a bold Affirmation, and as absurd as all the rest) they were indeed all of them the Heads, Governors, and Pastors of the Church universal: but not after the same manner as Peter was of 
* Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. Rom. cap. xi. . Why so? For they had the highest and most ample Power, as Apostles and Ambassadors; but Peter also as an ordinary Pastor. As much as to say, They had indeed the highest Power in the Church, and as large as he, but not so high a Power as his. Let any Man try, if he can make any other Sense of those words; that is, find any Sense at all in them. For was this Power of being an ordinary Pastor, greater than that of the Apostles, or no? If it were greater, than it is not true which he affirms, that the Apostles had the highest Power 
† Habuerunt summam Potestatem.  If it were less than the Power of the Apostles, than they were all greater than he, as he was an ordinary Pastor: and then it is nonsense to say, they so 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 Pastor, if that was less than the Power of the Apostleship: and if it were not, but greater than it; then (as I said) it is false, that the Apostles had the highest Power.  
This is sufficient to show into what Absurdities Men run, when they go about to maintain a Falsehood; and what wretched shifts they devise to obscure the clear Truth, which shines in their Eyes: Which when they have done, they walk as in Darkness, and cannot be persuaded to see or acknowledge their Error. Nay, one Error grows out of another, and having begun to wrest the Holy Scripture, they go on to strain it, so far as to extend it to any purpose they have to serve by it.  
For having presumed that Peter, and he alone, is promised to be made the Governor of the whole Church, by these Words of our Saviour, they immediately presume, without the show of a proof, that the Bishops of Rome succeed him in this Authority. Which is a very large Step, or rather Leap, from Peter to the Popes of Rome, between whom there is such a vast distance, that it is impossible 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 settled a Bishop there. For if he was Bishop of Antioch, it was against all ancient 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 first at Antioch, before he came to Rome. And who can think he did not settle one to take care of that Church of Antioch, when he left it? who may be called his Successor, as well as he, whom he is supposed to have placed afterwards in Rome. Which two things being allowed, as unquestionable Matters of Fact, there is no reason can be given why all the Power and Jurisdiction which is claimed upon the account of Succession, should not devolve by the Right of Primogeniture, upon the Bishop of Antioch: since it is confessed he first fat there, and sat there seven 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 assigned when he was there, as we are sure 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 succeed him there, as St. Peter; who could transfer to no body, neither there nor any where else, what was personally vested in him; as all the Privilege here granted him was. Or, if he was to have any Successor in his supposed Dominion, there were others had a better Title to it, than the Bishop of Rome; particularly St. John, who it is certain survived St. Peter. 
L. 1. de Pont. Rom. c. ix.  Therefore all that Bellarmine dare say in this matter is, that the Apostles being dead, the Apostolical Authority remained in Peter 's Successor alone. For which he gives us not one word of proof, but only this notorious Falsehood, that the Roman Bishop alone is called by all, the Apostolical Bishop, and his See simply the Apostolical See. When all the World knows, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and divers other Places are called by the same Name of Apostolical Sees or Churches; and their Bishops called not only Apostolical, but Catholic, and said to be Bishops of the Catholic Church. The meaning of all which is nothing else, but that they held the Catholic Religion and Faith, 
Epist. pars 1. ad Franciscum Bonum.  as Launoy most ingenuously confesses, and maintains the Roman Bishops themselves intended no more, when they subscribed themselves Bishops of the Catholic Church.  
Nay, Bellarmine himself, in the place now named, is constrained to acknowledge, that the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power was given not only to Peter, but to other Apostles also. For they might all say 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 Pastor, who should have perpetual Successors: to others as Delegates, who should have no Successors. Which is a mere Invention, a pure Figment of his own brain; without the shadow of a ground for it in the Book of God, or any ancient Authority; and against his own Confession, that all the Apostles had the highest Power; which includes all Power both ordinary and extraordinary, and a Power to appoint their Successors, in the Places they converted.  
There have abundance of other things been said by our Writers, to show that whatsoever may be supposed to have been promised in these Words, the Bishops of Rome can thence derive no lawful Claim to the like Authority. And yet (as if there were nothing plainer, than that Christ spoke to the Roman Bishops, when he said these Words to St. Peter) they have the confidence from hence to entitle the Pope to the Privilege of Infallibility, as well as to a Supreme Dominion over the Church. So Bellarmine, who elsewhere alleges these Words, 
L. iv. de Rom. Pontific. c. 3.  to prove that the chief Bishop (i. e. theirs) when he teacheth the whole Church, in things belonging to Faith, can in no case err. But this depends upon his former Suppositions, that Peter is the Rock of the Church as its Supreme Governor; and therefore every one of his Successors in like manner is the same: which having no Foundation, all his Superstructure upon them falls to the Ground. And indeed it is so sandy, that honest Men among themselves are ashamed to build any thing of this nature upon it: Particularly Launnoy who, on set purpose, demonstrates that Bellarmine neither obeyed the Decree of the Trent Council, 
Epist. pars v. Gulielmo Voello.  nor kept the Profession of Faith enjoined by Pius IU. when he drew this Conclusion of the Pope's Infallibility, from these Words, Thou art Peter, etc. but was guilty of downright Flattery of the Court of Rome; for whose sake he, in like manner, falfied in the Citations he brings out of the Fathers, to maintain the same Untruth.  
But further than this, the same Writer presses these words, to prove, that General Councils cannot err, neither in believing, nor teaching 
† L. 2. de Conc. Author. cap. i. . Which is as much as to confess that what Christ said to Peter, was intended to all Bishops: of whom a General Council consists. But here he endeavours to bring off himself, by this Salvo; if the Council be confirmed by the Pope: as if they received their Infallibility from him; who turns their doubtful Opinions into Oracles. Whence it is, that from the very same words, [Thou art Peter etc.] he proves the Pope to be above a Council 
* Ib. cap. xv. ; immediately constituted by Christ the Pastor and Head, not only of all particular Churches, but also of the whole universal Church congregated together.  
If this be to interpret the Scripture, I know not what is setting it upon the Rack; and stretching it as far as it pleaseth him who takes it in hand. No Heretics ever took so great a liberty as this; which, according to their way of reasoning, makes it necessary to seal up the Bible quite, that no body may look into it. For if the danger of wresting the holy Scriptures, be a just cause for denying the liberty of reading them to illiterate people; it ought not to be granted to the most Learned, who (it appears by this great Cardinal) are in as much, or more danger of this than any other Men: and so farewell the study of the Scriptures, which neither Priest nor People must meddle withal.  
But, thanks be to God, there is such a thing as Honesty and Integrity still remaining in the World; which qualifies all Men for the wholesome perusal of them: and hath preserved the minds of some in that Communion so uncorrupted, as to make them disdain and reject these perverse and arrogant Interpretations, or Distortions rather, of Holy Scripture. There is one hath lately declared his sense of this Promise to St. Peter, in remarkable words; with which I conclude this part of my Discourse 
† Du Pin de antiquae Eccles. Discipl. Dissert. iv. cap. 1. sect. 1. : Supposing Christ to have spoken these words [and upon this Rock] of the Person of Peter; he meant nothing else thereby, but that Peter should labour very much in the Edification of the Church; that is, in the Conversion of the Faithful, and Administration of the Churches. And therefore the most that can be deduced from hence is, that he should be the first and the chief among those who were to preach the Gospel: but it cannot from hence be gathered, with Bellarmine, that the Government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, especially about Faith.  
II. The truth of this will further appear, in the Explication of the next Words, which expound those of which I have now treated: And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, it shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.  
The sense of which is not so plain and obvious, as Bellarmine pretends; but we agree that they are a plain allusion to the Words of the Prophet Isaiah concerning Eliakim, Isa. xxii. 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David, i. e. make thee not Highpriest, as he grossly mistakes, but Steward of the Royal Family, to take in and thrust out whom thou shalt think fit. Such was the Power here promised to Peter by our Lord, who saith of himself, that he hath the Key of David (Rev. three 7.) i. e. of the House or Family of David; which he alone governs by an absolute Power; but tells Peter he intended to make him, under himself, his Supreme Lord and Master, such a Steward in the Church, as Eliakim had been in the Court.  
I say, in the Church; for by the Kingdom of Heaven, I think no body now will dispute, is meant the Family of Christ, or the Christian Church, in a great many places of the Gospel; and most likely is so to be interpreted here. But if any body be so minded as to understand by the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Christian Society here below, but the Company of the Blessed above; let them consider that the sense will still be the same; because by admission into the one, and abiding in it, we come to the other. And Baptism is the Key which lets us into the Church, out of which such as notoriously break their Baptismal Vow, aught to be shut, by the Censures of the Church; and again received into it upon their hearty Repentance, by granting them Absolution. Thus the following Words expound it, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, etc.  
That binding and losing are one and the same, with the Power of the Keys, is acknowledged by the Roman Catechism 
* De Sacrament. Paenitenn. 44.  and by Bellarmine himself, who confesses the plain sense of these Words to be, that first of all an Authority or Power is promised, defined by Keys; and then the Actions or Office of this Power is explained by those words, losing and binding. So that to lose and to open, to shut and to bind, is altogether the same thing 
† L. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. xii. verùm. . And we need not further trouble ourselves to inquire how far this Power extends: for it is certain there is nothing here promised, though we suppose it never so large, which was intended to him alone, but to them all; except that of opening the door first to let the Gentiles into the Church.  
This is apparent from what was said before concerning Christ, speaking to them all in him, as he spoke for them all, in answer to our Saviour's Question propounded to the whole Company. Which produced this Promise from our Saviour, not to him alone, but to all them in whose Name he spoke. Which is no new Interpretation, but as old as the Church itself: for the Ancients say with an unanimous consent, that these Keys were given to the whole Church in the Person of Peter 
* Du Pin de antiqua Eccles. Disc. dissert. iv. c. 1. Sect. 1. ; as a late Writer in the Roman Communion honestly confesses. St. Austin particularly, inculcates this an hundred times (as his words are) a proof of which may be seen in another of his Brethren 
† Jo. Launoy Epist. par. 2. Hadriano Valantio, p. 14. etc. , who hath made a Collection of xxvi places out of his Works, to show that he taught this openly, frequently and constantly, in such plain words as may be understood by themselves, without the help of an Interpreter. I cannot well forbear to mention one of them, because it affords us many considerable Remarks: 
‖ Aug. Enarratio in Psal. cviii.  As some things (says he) 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 OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and if there be any like: so JUDAS sustains, after a certain manner, the Person of the Jews, the Enemies of Christ, etc.  
Here they of the Church of Rome are very forward to catch at these words, which signify a place of Priority that Peter had among the Apostles (which no body denies) but are not willing to take any notice of all the rest; which utterly overthrow that Primacy which they would advance him unto from this place. For first, he says, some things do but seem to belong to Peter, which in truth ought to be referred to the Church. And secondly, That their Sense is not clear or evident, till they be carried beyond him. Among which things, thirdly, he reckons what our Saviour here saith, I will give thee the Keys, etc. which they would now engross to St. Peter, and have us believe this to be the plain and obvious sense of Christ's words, which St. Austin says are not plain, unless we refer them to the Church. Whose Person (fourthly) he says he did bear or represent, not by virtue of his Place, or any Authority he had above the rest, but in a Figure, to signify Unity, that is, as the Ancients interpret it. And it is farther remarkable, (fifthly) that Christ did not promise him the Primacy, in promising him the Keys, for he had the Primacy (here spoken of) before; and with respect to that Christ directed to him these words, rather than any of the rest, because he was already the first, not in Office, but in Order; and so the fittest Person to be singled out, to represent what Christ intended. And to convince every one there is no Authoritative Primacy meant in these words of St. Austin, he adds (sixthly) that Judas sustained the Person of Christ's Enemies, as Peter did of the Church. Will any body infer from hence, that Judas had a Jurisdiction over all the wicked, and left it to his Successors, one of which hath now the same? Let them forbear then to make such Inferences, from what is said of St. Peter's Primacy, which gave him no right to rule, but only made him stand fairest, being the first, to be chosen to represent the rest. If any will be still so perverse as to wrangle, because St. Austin doth not mention Judas his Primacy as he doth of Peter's; let them learn more Modesty by knowing that Prosper, one of St. Austin's Scholars, upon the very same Psalm, says in express terms, that 
* Judas primatum gessit inimicorum Christi.  Judas carried the Primacy of Christ's Enemies. Which if they will not expound to signify a supreme Authority to govern Christ's Enemies, let them no longer interpret St. Peter's Primacy to signify such an Authority over his Friends. He had none here promised him, is as certain as any thing can be; but the Keys to commend Unity, were promised him; which were in truth given to all the rest. This is the ancient Sense, which drew this plain and pertinent Observation from another honest Writer, in the Roman Communion, 
* Rigaltius in Epist. Firmiliani.  He said to Peter, I will give thee the Keys, but he did not say, I will give them to thee alone.  
Which is justified to be true, by three other Passages in the holy Gospels. In the first of which, he promises as much to all in the very same words, as he had done to him. Matth. xviii. 18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven: which is the Explication, as you heard before, of the Power of the Keys, in the same terms, (without the least difference but what is between the plural number and the singular) wherein it was delivered to St. Peter. And in the next Chapter he repeats it again, only in other words, when he saith Matth. xix. 28. Ye shall sit upon XII Thrones, judging (i. e. ruling and governing) the XII Tribes of Israel; without any mention of one Throne, peculiar and higher than the rest, to St. Peter. And thus far there is no more than a Promise to be met withal in the Gospel, but no actual grant, no words whereby our Lord makes a conveyance of this Power to them, till after his Resurrection from the Dead. When he gives out a Commission to them, as large as can be made; wherein there is nothing peculiar reserved to St. Peter, but it runs in general terms to them all, John xx. 21, 22, 23. For he neither saith, I send thee, nor breathed upon him alone, saying, Receive Thou the Holy Ghost: Whosoever Sins thou remittest, etc. But he saith to them, being all save Thomas assembled together, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said thus, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever Sins ye retain, they are retained. And accordingly, it may be added, when the Holy Ghost descended (of which this breathing on them was an Emblem and Pledge) they were all (Thomas with the rest) with one accord in one place, and it was imparted to each of them alike, without any mark of distinction. For we read of no Flame that crowned the Head of St. Peter, greater and more illustrious than that upon his Brethren: but the Text saith, the Tongues, like as of Fire, were divided, and sat upon every one of them singly 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; Acts two. 2, 3. The mighty Wind also, wherein this Flame came (betokening the powerful Inspiration which was entering into them) filled all the House where they were sitting, and not only that Corner where St. Peter was placed. And so this Promise was equally performed in common to them all, as it had been made to them all. Nay, this very thing is no less than a demonstration, that the Promise was intended to all, because the Performance was to all.  
That here his Promise was performed, is very manifest to those, who are desirous to understand the Truth: for no other time can be named when it was performed to Peter; nor any other words found, wherein the thing promised was conveyed, but these, as my Father sent me, so I send you. And lastly, this is the sense of the Church, as appears by St. Cyprian in ancient times; who observes that our Lord, who said to Peter, Thou art Peter, etc. gave to all his Apostles equal Power 
* Parem Potestatem.  after his Resurrection, when he said, As the living Father sent me, so I send you, etc. concluding from thence, that all the Apostles were what St. Peter was 
† Hoc utique erant & caeteri Apostoli quod suit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, etc. L. de unitate Ecclesiae & Epist. xxiii. ad Jubianum. : And by Theophylact in later times, who thus glosses upon Matth. xuj. 19 Though our Lord said only to Peter, I WILL GIVE THEE, yet they were given to all the Apostles. When? at that time when he said, Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted. For the word, I WILL GIVE, denotes the future time, that is, after the Resurrection.  
Then he said to them all, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you. Which are words so large that they contain in them a plenitude of Power; and confute the conceit of those who say that Christ indeed gave the Power of remitting and retaining Sins to all the Apostles, but the Power of the Keys to Peter alone. Whereby if they meant that to Peter it was given to open the Gate first to the Gentiles, it ought to be allowed to be a true sense; though we are not certain it was the thing peculiarly intended by our Saviour in these words. But understanding thereby a distinct Power from that of binding and losing, retaining and remitting, (which St. Peter exercised when he let the Gentiles into the Church) it is certainly false that he gave him such a Power, which he did not confer upon the rest. For should we suppose binding and losing to be distinct from the Power of the Keys, yet this Power of the Keys (be it what it will) we may be sure is included in these comprehensive words, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you; which were spoken unto them all.  
And therefore as the Keys were not promised to him alone; so not to him more than any other Apostle; but only the use of them first, before any other Apostle. That's the most (as I have often said) which can reasonably be conceived to be peculiarly promised to Peter in these words, that he should first open the Door of Faith to the Gentiles, as we read he did, Acts x. and as some think to the Jews also, Acts two. Tertullian 
* L. de Pudicitiae c. xxi.  seems to be of this mind (and I shall not here dispute it) who mentioning this place, I will give thee the Keys, etc. thus proceeds; so the Event teaches us; the Church was first built on him; that is, by him. He first handled the Key. See what Key; Ye Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth a Man approved of God among you, etc. (Acts two. 22, etc.) He in fine did first by the Baptism of Christ, unlock the entrance of the Heavenly Kingdom, etc. He bond Ananias with the Bond of Death; and he absolved the Man lame of his Feet, from the weakness wherewith he laboured. And in the Dispute which arose about the Obligation of the Law, Peter first of all by the instinct of the Holy Ghost (having told them how God made choice of him that the Gentiles should hear the Word from his Mouth) said, And now why tempt ye God, to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear, etc. where he plainly makes the Power of the Keys, and binding and losing to be the same thing: and from the scope of his Discourse, it appears (as Launoy 
† Epist. par. two. Hadriano Vallantio, p. 6.  hath observed) that they then believed at Rome that in the Person of Peter the Keys were given to the Church; that is, says he, the power of binding and losing. Which things if the late Catholic Scripturist had known, or would have been pleased to mind, how could he have had the Confidence to say, that our Lord spoke these words to Peter to signify, that he was the Head and Chief in ordinary. For though the Power of binding and losing was afterward given to the other Apostles, yet the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are never in Scripture said to be given to any but to St. Peter 
* The seventh Point, n. 6. . By which Keys also he saith is signified, the plenitude of highest Power: For this vain Conceit is contrary to the common Opinion of the ancient Fathers (whom they are bound by their Profession of Faith and Oath, to follow) contrary to their greatest Schoolmen, (such as Scotus, Aquinas, Alex. Alensis) who affirm that the Keys promised to Peter in St. Matth. xuj. were given to all the Apostles in St. John xx. contrary also to their own Catechism (as I have shown) according to which he ought to have instructed his Followers.  
The Sum of what hath been said is this: 

1. The Power which our Lord here promised to Peter, was not meant to him alone.  
2. For he did but represent and sustain the Person of the Church (as the Ancients speak) to whom this Promise belongs.  
3. And therefore our Lord afterward promises the very same thing, in the same words to all the Apostles, which he here promises to Peter.  
4. And accordingly when he performed his Promise, he gave this Power to every one of them equally.  
5. But Christ directed this Promise at the first singularly to him, that he might commend Unity.  
6. Or, at the most, he promised him the Honour, of opening the Door of Faith first unto the Gentiles.  
7. From whence we can only gather that he was the first among the Apostles; but not that he was promised any Power which the rest had not: for the contrary is apparent.  
8. To all which I must add (repeating briefly what I said upon the foregoing words) that if we should grant our Saviour to have promised some Power to Peter (when he said, I will give thee the Keys) which the other Apostles had not; it would prove a personal Prerogative, and cannot be shown to have descended to any Successor, much less to the Pope of Rome; who, Bellarmine saith, is a true Prince, who hath Power to make true Laws to bind the whole Church. And this he proves from these words, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, etc. 
* L. iv. de Rom. Pontif. c. xuj.     
Concerning which it will be thought too sharp perhaps to say (though they are the words of one in the Roman Communion 
† Launoy ubi supra, p. 77. ) simply to relate the words of this Author, is simply to confute them; they are so very contrary to Truth and Equity. The Reader therefore may be pleased briefly to consider, what our Lord himself saith to all his Apostles, Matth. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. which utterly overturns these proud Pretensions. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no Man your Father upon the Earth; for one is your Father which is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. The repetition of one and the same thing so often, in words of the same import, argues it to be a matter of great moment, which ought to be duly weighed. And it is this, that no Man, no not any of his Apostles, should take upon him to prescribe that as a part of Religion, which God our Saviour hath not prescribed by his Laws: and that we ought not absolutely to submit to any Man's Dictates, as Children do to the Will of their Fathers; nor pin our Faith, as we speak, upon any Man's sleeve; i. e. let it depend entirely upon his Authority: For this is a submission which is due only to God our Saviour, (who in this Sense of the words) is our only Father, and Master, and Leader; and therefore we cannot, without the highest injury to him, own any one else to be such, nor give them these Names; but as they teach, not their own, but Christ's Doctrine unto Men. And in this Office all the Apostles were equal, and no one of them could claim an Authority over the rest of his Brethren.  
There are many other places wherein we read of one Shepherd, one Lord, one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: from whence we may conclude that Peter himself had no Power to make, but only to declare the Laws of his and our Lord and Lawgiver, Jesus Christ. So the words of Christ's Commission run, when he saith, not to him alone, but to them all, Go ye, and disciple all Nations, etc. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, Matth. xxviii. 20. Here is their Authority, to publish the Commands of their Master, not what they pleased to command themselves. Which Peter was so far from doing, that he went not about the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, and the calling of the Gentiles, till he was authorized by an heavenly Vision; which discovered this Mystery to him, as a part of the Counsel of God, but no Law, nor so much as a Thought of his own. For being charged afterwards by the Jews for eating with Men uncircumcised, he excuses himself by a long Apology, wherein he relates how he was commanded to do it by God himself, whom he could not withstand (Acts xi. 3, 4, etc.) which was not done like a Lawgiver. Nay, after this Revelation made to him, he was so weak as to observe this Law, to the great Offence of the Gentiles; for which he was reprehended by St. Paul, who had the honour to abrogate the Law of Moses among the Gentiles while St. Peter (who began that work) was the Minister of the Circumcision: Gal. two. 7, 10, 11, etc.  
Nor doth the word [Bind] import a Power to impose Laws, but only to tie Men to those Laws which are already made. Thus it signifies in that very place, which Bellarmine alleges to maintain his Sense of the word, viz. to make Laws: Matth. xxiii. 4. For they bind heavy Burdens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on Men's Shoulders, etc. that is, they were rigorous Interpreters of the Laws of God, which it was their Office to expound, according to the plain sense and meaning of them, and not according to the Traditions of the Elders, which had made them intolerable Burdens.  
But suppose the word to signify what they please, it will do them no service; because this Power of Binding was not promised to Peter alone, but to them all, as hath been before proved. And consequently he could do nothing, which they could not do as much as he; that is, they were all Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God: All of them like to Eliakim, 
1 Cor. iv. 1.  to whom the Key of the House of David is promised, as the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. For by that very word which we translate Stewards, or Dispenser's, is that Office 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to which Eliakim was advanced in the room of Shebna, expressed by the LXX. in Isa. xxii. 19, 21. which was not a Supreme Power in the Court, where all the rest of the Courtiers did not depend on him as their Lord and Prince; but the Power of a prime Minister in the Royal Family, which he governed not after his own Will, but the King's. In like manner all the Apostles were Ministers, by whom Men believed (1 Cor. three 5.) Stewards of the heavenly Mysteries, which they faithfully dispensed (1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.) according to the Will of Christ, who hath the Key of David; that is, is the sole Supreme Governor of the Church, and gives Rules to it; which the Apostles delivered, but did not ordain themselves, nor bind upon Men by their own Authority, but by his. For they were not Authors of the Divine Laws, which they taught, but the Publishers of them, and equal Publishers of one and the same common Doctrine: Which every Bishop in the Church hath as much Authority to bind upon Men as the Pope: They being all of the same Merit and Priesthood (as St. Hierom 
* Epist. ad Evagrium.  speaks) all Successors of the Apostles.  
There are some other words of St. Hierom (it may not be unfit here to note) which are usually alleged to prove the contrary, viz. That he thought St. Peter had some Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostolical College; from whence they hope to derive the like Power unto the Pope over all Bishops: They are in his first Book against Jovinian, where he saith, One among the twelve was therefore chosen, that an HEAD being constituted, the occasion of Schism might be removed. But they are unconscionably disingenuous who allege this Passage, and do not give us the entire Sentence, but only this Conclusion of it; which can have no such meaning as they pretend, without making mere Nonsense of the words foregoing, which are these. But thou sayest, the Church was founded upon Peter; though the very same in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and they received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is solidly bottomed upon them EQVALLY. And then follows the words now named, Yet ONE was therefore chosen among the XII, etc. which makes it as clear as the Sun, that he dreamt of no such HEADSHIP of ONE over all the rest, as signifies a Supremacy of Power: for what one Text, he saith, affirms of Peter, another affirms of them all; they all receiving the Keys (which is the highest Power) and the stability of the Church relying upon them equally.  
I conclude this part of my Discourse with the Observation of a late Learned Writer of our Church 
* Dr. Hammond 's Dispatcher dispatched, P. iii. c. 7. Sect. 2. n. 13. . If any Power or degree of Power was here promised to Peter, more than to the rest of the Apostles, it must be gathered either from the force of the Substance of the Promise, or from the Circumstances wherewith it was delivered.  
The Substantial part is nothing else but that of a Steward in the Church, set forth by the Emblem of Keys, and more explicitly declared by the Power of binding and losing; which carries in it no intimation of such a thing as a Supremacy over the whole Church, but only of a ruling Power in some Family; that is, in that part of the Universal Church where his lot should fall. For this very thing being presently after promised to all the Apostles, it makes it evident, there was no Supremacy here promised; for then there must be not one, but twelve Supremes.  
As for the Circumstances, wherein this part and the former of our Saviour's Promise was delivered (which some are pleased to urge as very considerable) they are of no strength to support so great a weight as they lay upon them. For first, It is very unreasonable that Circumstances should be thought of greater force to declare the meaning of this Promise, than the very Substance itself is. And secondly, All these Circumstances (save only that of his own Name and his Fathers joined together) are not peculiar to him, but common to others, who confessed Christ's Divinity, and had it revealed from God, and were blessed, and designed for Stones in the Fabric of the Church, as well as Peter. And further, even that Circumstance of calling him Simon Bar-jona had a visible reason for it, to distinguish this Simon from Simon zealots. So that there is nothing left but the small Circumstance of calling him by his Name, to be the grand Foundation of St. Peter's Supremacy.  
Can any one be satisfied with such poor Proofs? Which are no better than if we should argue in this manner, our Lord said to Peter, Fellow me, and so he did to the other eleven, and by this made them his Disciples in common. But had he said, Simon Barjona, Fellow thou me, (as he might very well, if any other Simon were then present) he alone (according to this way of discoursing) had been taken into Discipleship, and none after him enjoyed this Honour.  
But I have said enough, if not too much, upon these Texts; and must here end this Paper, for fear of swelling it beyond the intended bulk. The rest shall soon follow.   

ERRATA.  

PAge 81. line 21. for will be, read were.  
P. 83. l. 31. r. understood.  
P. 85. l. 10. del. of, l. ult. r. walk on.  
P. 88 penult. r. falsified.  
P. 93. l. 29. del. of before Peter's.    

LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1688.   

The Second Part.  
The TEXTS examined which Papists cite out of the Bible, TO PROVE The Supremacy of St. PETER and of the POPE over the whole Church.  

IMPRIMATUR.  
Guil. Needham. Febr. 14. 1687.   
III.  
NOw we are come to the last reserve of the Roman Church, for the support of this Cause; which lies in those Words of Christ to Peter, John xxi. 15, 16, 17. Feed my Lambs, and feed my Sheep. They are sensible of the truth of that, which hath been oft repeated, that in neither of the former places Christ gave any thing to Peter; but only promised he would give him such things as are there mentioned. Now they are hard put to it, to find when he did perform this Promise; and not find with all, that he performed it to all the Apostles: and therefore, as I have said, made it to them all. Here is the only Place they rely upon; here they would fain find, what is not where else to be found, something peculiarly granted to Peter, which was conferred upon none of the rest. Read the words, say they, and observe how they are peculiarly spoken to Peter: So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon Son of Ionas, lovest thou these me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest I love thee. He saith unto him, FEED MY LAMBS. He saith to him again the second time, Simon Son of Ionas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, FEED MY SHEEP. He saith unto him the third time, Simon Son of Ionas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, FEED MY SHEEP.  
See, say they, with what Solemnity our Lord here speaks to Peter, and to him alone, calling him three times particularly by his Name and Relation, and bidding him as oft, feed his Lambs or Sheep; whereby he instated him in the Office he had promised him, and made him, in a particular manner, to be a Pastor, even the Pastor of the whole Church, with a Supreme Power over it.  
First; To which we reply, That having seen and considered all this, we can see nothing here that looks like a Grant or Commission; nothing given to St. Peter by these words; which are a plain Charge or Command, requiring him to do his Office, which was therefore conferred upon him before, together with the rest of the Apostles, when our Lord said, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you, etc. Receive ye the Holy Ghost, etc.  
Secondly; And as here is no Commission, no Conveyance of any thing made to him, but a bare Precept to do his Duty: So the Duty doth not concern him alone, but belongs to them all as much as him. It is at this time required in a Precept directed to him alone, that's true: and Bellarmine might have spared all his Labour to prove, that these words were spoken to Peter alone. They were so, if we understand thereby that he only by Name, is now admonished of his Duty; (the reason of which we shall see presently) but the Duty of which he was admonished was not peculiar to him; and so the words do not belong to him alone, as appears by many Arguments.  
1. From St. Peter himself, who seems to have interpreted the Mind of Christ in this Speech to him, in his words to the Elders of the Church to whom he wrote; 1 Pet. v. 1. The Elders, which are among you, I exhort, who am, What? the Monarch of the Church? the Vicar of Christ? Or Pastor of Pastors? The Chief Apostle? Or Supreme Bishop? No such thing, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your fellow Elder, etc. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, etc. And from whom did these Elders receive their Power and Authority? From St. Peter? No such matter, but from the chief Shepherd or Pastor, from whom he bids them expect their. Reward, ver. 4.  
2. In like manner St. Paul gives the very same Charge to the Elders of Ephesus, to take heed to themselves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, to FEED the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. Acts xx. 28.  
3. For Christ, as I said, had given this Power unto all his Apostles, when he said, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you, etc. Joh. xx. 21. What did he send them to do? but to gather together in one, the Children of God that were scattered abroad, and to feed his Flock, as He the good Shepherd had done, Joh. x. 11. & xi. 52. And therefore we may say here of these words, as Rigaltius doth of the former; He said to Peter, Feed my Sheep; but he doth not say, do thou alone feed them. No; it may be further observed, that our Lord in his Life-time, sent them all to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel; Matth. x. 6, 7. And, a little before this, seeing the People scattered abroad as Sheep having no Shepherd, he bade his Disciples pray that the Lord would send Labourers among them: not one (who should depute others) but as many as were needful to gather in his Harvest. Matth. ix. 36, etc.  
4. And therefore thus the ancient Fathers have expounded these words, particularly the Roman Clergy themselves in their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage, where admonishing them of their Duty, (in the absence of St. Cyprian by reason of the then Persecution) they press them with these words to Peter; Feed my Sheep; which, they tell them, the rest of the Disciples in like manner did, and accordingly it was now incumbent upon them also 
* Vice Pastoris custodire gregem. , in the room of the Pastor to keep the Flock.  
This Launoy 
* Epist. Par. two. ad Raimundum Formentinum, p. 27, etc.  proves is the Exposition of the Church, and most justly condemns Bellarmine (and such like Flatterers) as failing in his Duty: Which required him to expound these words according to the Sense of the whole Church, which is directly against this Exposition, that Christ here gave this Power to Peter alone. A great many of the ancient Popes of Rome, he there shows, speak otherwise; and one of their Neighbours, St. Ambrose, expressly declares, that those Sheep, and that Flock which Christ bad Peter feed, he did not alone receive, but he both received them with us, and with him we all received them 
† L. de Sacerd. dignit. c. 2. . As much as to say, what Christ said to Peter, he spoke in him to all Bishops. Which is the Sense of St. Austin in a great many places (the same Author shows 
‖ Launoy Epist. pars v. Carolo Magistro. ) making Peter here also to have represented the whole Church: so that when it was said to him, it was said to all, Lovest thou me? Feed my Sheep 
* De Ago Christiano cap. 30. .  
5. But what need any further Testimonies? when this Preface is sung not only in the Feast of St. Peter, but of all the rest of the Apostles and Evangelists (except St. John) and on their Octaves in the Roman Church at this very day; We humbly beseech thee, O Lord, the Eternal Pastor, not to forsake thy Flock, but preserve it with continued Protection, by thy blessed Apostles: That it may be governed by the same Rulers, which as VICARS of thy Work, thou didst bestow upon it, to be set PASTORS over it. This is sufficient to show that the Roman Church itself hath anciently believed, this Charge was given to all the Apostles to feed his Flock, and be the chief Pastors of it 
† Praeesse pastors. .  
What? will some say, was there nothing here peculiarly spoken to Peter? No Mystery in those words thrice repeated, and specially directed to him by name, as you cannot but acknowledge? Yes, no doubt; but it is no more than this, that Peter of all the rest, had lately thrice denied his Master. This might well have made Peter himself question his Love to Christ; and move our Lord to ask him whether he still remained as confident as he was before, that he had a greater Affection to him than any of his Disciples. For so he gins this Speech, Lovest thou me more than these? As he had fancied he did, when he said, though all Men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended; Matth. xxvi. 33. The vanity of which thoughts he had found by sad Experience, he alone denying, nay abjuring his Master. In this Peter was singular, and did more than any of the rest. For which cause more was to be said to him, and more was to be done by him, than any of them. He was to answer thrice to three Questions, which were solemnly put to him, that by a threefold Confession, he might obliterate his threefold denial.  
This is all the Mystery which the ancient Christians could find in this solemn Speech, made with particular Application to Peter, as may be seen in St. Cyril of Alexandria 
* In John xxi. , St. Austin 
† Tract. xlvii. in Johan. , Greg. Nazianzen 
‖ Tract. xxix. , and a long train, which I could set down, of other Fathers; which assures us that this was the common and literal Exposition of these words, and that they understood no other reason why our Lord addressed himself only to Peter, though other Apostles were present, but only this; that he might declare he would have Peter notwithstanding his denying him thrice, be confident, upon this profession of Love to him, he was restored to his Favour, and that he would have him no less than the rest, look upon the care of his Flock as belonging to him, who had deserved by his shamefully repeated denial of him, to fall from that Office, more than any other of his Apostles. For though they all fled, yet none denied him but Peter alone; and therefore these words were as if our Lord had said, Tho there be cause enough for me to reject thee, yet because thou didst repent thee of thy Sin, and dost now profess thy Love to me, Feed my Sheep, no less than the rest of my Apostles to whom I have committed the care of them; which will sufficiently expose the vanity of the Catholic Scripturist 
* Seventh's Point, n. 7. , who bids us (against the sense of all Antiquity) to note that our Lord would not have required greater Love in Peter rather than in any of the rest, nor have said, Lovest thou me more than these? if he had not here intended to give him higher dignity in Pastorship than the rest. Note rather, good Reader, what hath been said, and these words of St. Cyril, who was a better Scripturist, and more Catholic than this Jesuit. I will not set them down at large, but only the Conclusion of them, which are very remarkable, and expressly expound this Passage as I have done. In that Speech of our Lord, FEED MY SHEEP, there was a kind of renewal 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. L. xii. in Joh. p. 1120.  of the Apostleship formerly bestowed upon him; doing away the Infamy his of Falls, and blotting out the cowardice of human Infirmity. Where a great Person of our own hath justly remarked that word renewal 
‖ Bp Andrew Tortura Tort, p. 51. : He doth not say that our Lord augmented his Dignity (which is the new Doctrine) but that he renewed it, or restored him to it. Which Dignity he had said (in the beginning of this Discourse) Peter was advanced unto, when our Lord named him, not praealiis, above others, but cum aliis 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyril. Ib. , with other Disciples, to be an Apostle; and therefore now did not give him more than the rest, but only declared he did not take the forfeiture he had made of that Dignity, but reinstated him in it, together with the rest.  
This is undoubtedly the ancient Sense of Christ's Church; to which I know not what to add for the Explication of these words, unless it be this, that Peter had, just before this Discourse of our Lords, begun to express his earnest desire to recover his Favour; casting himself into the Sea (when the other Disciples came by the Ship) to get to our Saviour; which may be looked upon as a token of excessive Love to him, and of a more than ordinary desire to enjoy his Company. From hence a very learned Writer 
* Dr. Jackson Book iii. upon the Creed, c. 7.  of this Church, thinks our Lord takes occasion to make this Speech to him (but whether to check or to cherish that desire he dares not determine) the import of which he gives in this Paraphrase. Thou hast made profession of more than ordinary Love to me, of readiness to lay down thy Life for my sake, though all others, even these thy Fellows, should forsake me; and art willing, I see, by thy present hazard of it, to make good thy former words. But wouldst thou have me yet to show thee a more excellent way? I have told it thee long since; Thou art converted, strengthen thy Bretrens. SIMON the Son of JONA, if thou desirest to prove thyself a CEPHAS, or testify the sincerity of thy Faith and Love (which by the Powers of darkness were of late so grievously shaken) FEED MY LAMBS, FEED MY SHEEP. Yea, seeing thou thrice deniedst the Shepherd of thy Soul, I say unto thee the third time, FEED MY SHEEP. Let the Memory of thy forepassed threefold Sin; also let this my present threefold admonition, excite thee unto triple diligence in thy Charge to show such pity and compassion, as I have showed if you do but so contrive it that Peter have all under his Care, and the Apostles themselves be his Curates.  
But they who can be pleased with such Conceits as these, have little Reverence for the Holy Scriptures; and it is a great Affront unto our Understandings to offer us mere Imaginations for Reasons; their own Dreams instead of the Divine Oracles. If it may consist with Christian Sobriety, to make such a nice distinction between Lambs and Sheep, as to make them imply different things (any more than the two several words for feed 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and for lovest thou me, are thought to do) it is far more likely that our Lord intended to signify the Care that ought to be taken of all Christians suitable to the diversity of their States. Some of which (as a great Man 
‖ Dr. jack's. B. 3. c. seven. Sect. x.  of our own Church speaks) are to be handled tenderly, and cherished like Lambs; others to be looked unto like elder Sheep, and to be fed with stronger Meat, but with less personal or assiduous Attendance.  
This hath some sense in it, which is very useful, and agreeable to all men's Thoughts: but if we set our fancies on work, they abound with vain Conceits of which we can find no end. For if Lambs, and Lambkins, and Sheep only be St. Peter's Walk, and he the Shepherd, where are the Rams? (as a no less learned 
* Dr. colin's EPPHATA. p. 51.  than ingenious Man asks) they are excepted it seems, and Rams, as Turrianus fancies, are the Apostles, or their Successors, that is, Bishops: or, as Cardinal Tolet 
† In xv. Joh, Annot. 3.  (Bellarmin's Equal) will have it, they are Kings and Princes: and so these two, Apostles and Kings are by this Interpretation both shut out; whom Bellarmine intended by his Device to have shut into Peter's Fold.  
But the graver sort of Writers even in the Roman Church, are ashamed of such Mysteries as these; which they see may be invented at pleasure. Maldonate 
‖ in Joh. xxi. 15, etc.  himself (to say nothing of Jansenius) bids those, who subtly inquire, why Christ calls his Disciples Lambs, rather than Sheep, think again and again what they do, and take heed lest they expose themselves to the laughter of the Learned: for the difference is in word, not in sense; save only that the word Lamb hath something in it more soft and tender, and might be used to commend them the more to Peter's Affection. For this diminutive form of speech is a sign of very tender and ardent Love, and more moving than any other; as appears by the common instance of a dying Father, who expresses more of his own Affection, and works more upon his Friends, if he says, I commend to you the Care of my little Babes, than if he simply says, I commend the Care of my Children to you: Whence it is our Saviour sometimes used this form, just before he parted with his Disciples, John xiii. 33. Little Children, yet a little while I am with you, etc. and his Apostles also, particularly St. John, who uses it seven times in his first Epistle, to declare the Greatness and Tenderness of his Love, and to excite the like in others.  
That Writer 
* Maldonate.  indeed pursues no less than the other, the pretensions of the Church of Rome from these words; though he like not this Curiosity: insisting upon Christ's committing all the Sheep, (i. e. all Christians) to Peter. Which will not do their business, since they were not otherwise committed to him than they were to the rest of Christ's Apostles: who had the same Power given them, and were to take the same Care of all Christ's Flock that he did. Not that every one of them was to feed or teach all Christians, simply and universally understood; for that was impossible, and would have made the Labours of the rest useless, if one were sufficient: but all indefinitely, so that among them none should be neglected, but instructed by some or other of them. This must necessarily be the meaning: for otherwise, our Lord bad Peter do that which could not be done by one Man; or, if it could have been done, would have made all the other Apostles idle, and left them nothing to do.  
No, say they, we do not mean that Peter alone was to preach the Gospel to all Nations; so he could not feed all; but this sort of feeding must be allowed to others: but he alone was to rule and govern in chief, to feed by Authority and Power over all, whereby he was to prescribe what was to be taught and believed.  
But this is to return where we were before, to the signification of the Word Feed; which cannot mean one thing with respect to Peter, and another with respect to the rest: but signifies the same Power, be it what it will, common to them all. If this need any further Explication, those Words of our Lord, Go, and teach all Nations, Matth. xxviii. 19 Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gospel unto every Creature, Mark xuj. 15. will satisfy us that Peter had no peculiar Authority conferred on him, above the other Apostles. For he gave this Charge to them all, and it was ushered in with a far more magnificent Preface to it, than when he spoke here particularly to Peter; for he first acquaints them with his own Supreme Authority, saying, All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, and then adds, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, etc. which is a Commission as large as could be given to Men; including in it all the Power that was necessary for the establishing and governing those Churches which they should gather unto Christ.  
Who can think that they who had this Authority given them, were themselves to be taught and governed by Peter alone? Nothing could put such a Conceit into men's Minds, but an ambitious desire to advance themselves to the highest Dominion, by raising Peter above all others: Who, it is evident, did not take themselves to be all inferior to him; nor to be less able to feed him, than he was to feed them. For St. Paul (who was herein inferior that he was called late to be an Apostle, as one born out of due time) did take upon him to feed Peter, and that with his Staff too (if I may so speak) that is, with his Reproof; and this at Antioch, St. Peter's own Seat: Where it had been very proper for him one would think, to have stood upon his peculiar Prerogative, if he had known of any belonging to him.  
Which if he could have challenged, we should still be to seek by what right the Bishop of Rome claims the same Authority that St. Peter had. O says Boniface the VIIIth 
* Extravagant. L. 1. Tit. 8. de Major. & Obedientia. , Christ spoke to Peter and to his Successors, when he said, FEED MY SHEEP. But how doth he prove that? Why, we must take his bare word for it, both that he spoke these words to Peter's Successors, and to them alone, and that the Bishops of Rome are his sole Successors: All this he delivers as an infallible Dictator, and it is not good manners to question that the Universal Flock of Christ is so committed to them, that whether Greeks or others shall say, they are not committed to Peter and his Successors, they must necessarily confess they are none of the SHEEP of Christ. But it is worth any bodies while to read on to the end of that Extravagant where he asserts this: whereby they will be infallibly satisfied he was no infallible Interpreter, but a gross Perverter of the Holy Scriptures. For here it is that he proves in the Church there is both the Spiritual and the Temporal Power, from those Words, Behold here are two Swords, Luk. xxii. 38. and that the Temporal Power is subject to the Spiritual, because the Powers that are, are ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1.) for they would not be in order, unless Sword were under Sword, and Spiritual things are superior to Temporal. For the Prophecy of Jeremy is verified of the Church and the Ecclesiastical Power, ch. i. 10. Behold, I have set thee this day over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root up, and pull down, etc. Therefore the Temporal Power, if it go out of the way, must be judged by the Spiritual; but the Supreme Spiritual Power, by God alone, not by Man; as the Apostle bears witness, 1 Cor. two. 15. He that is Spiritual judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no Man. After all which goodly Interpretation of Holy Scriptures (more like Pasquil than the Pope) he concludes most pontifically, We declare, affirm, define and pronounce, that it is altogether necessary to Salvation, for every humane Creature to be subject to the Pope of Rome.  
This is his Conclusion from FEED MY SHEEP, and from other Places of Scripture, expounded after the very same fashion as he abuses this: Which though it be very presumptuous, yet is not too arrogant for him who could entertain such a monstrous Conceit, as this which we read in one of his Decrees 
* Sexti Decret. L. 1. Tit. vi. cap. xvii. Fundamenta. . Where he says, Christ made Peter the Chief, that from him, as from a certain Head, he might diffuse, as it were, his Gifts into the whole Body; for that having taken him IN CONSORTIUM INDIVIDVAE TRINITATIS, into the Partnership of the undivided Trinity: He would have him called that which the Lord himself was, saying, THOU ART PETER, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church. Now if Peter be thus exalted into the Consortship of the Blessed Trinity, and the Pope have a just claim unto all that belongs to Peter; then is the Pope no less than OUR LORD GOD, as some of the Canonists have called him; unto whom Boniface might well conclude all must be subject upon pain of Damnation.  
I conclude this whole Discourse with these three Observations; which are better grounded than their proud Decrees.  
First, It is worth considering, that this lofty Structure which they have erected in the Church of Rome, of the Supremacy of their Bishop, is built barely upon three Metaphorical Speeches of our Saviour unto St. Peter, without one word or syllable concerning the Bishop of Rome, or any other Successor. One would have expected that a thing of this mighty moment should have had a stronger Foundation, and been delivered in plainer words, than upon this Rock, I will give thee the Keys, and, Feed my Sheep: and that we should have been told also in downright terms, who should inherit the supreme Power, supposed to be conferred by these Metaphorical Speeches when he was dead and gone; especially, if all Christians in the World must necessarily, upon pain of Damnation, be subject to Peter's Successor.  
And yet so it is, this is all, that a Wit of such height as Bellarmine's (who is wont to scrape up all that any way seems to make for his purpose) durst venture to allege out of the Holy Scriptures for the proof of so weighty a Point.  
The Rhemists indeed in their Annotations upon the New Testament, make bold with two places more, which they apply to this business; but with so little Reason (not to say so ridiculously) that he had the discretion to let them alone.  
One is in St. Matthew xiv. 29. where, upon the word walked, they have this wise Note. Peter (saith St. Bernard) walking upon the Waters as Christ did, DECLARED himself the ONLY VICAR of Christ: which should be Ruler not over one People, but over ALL: For many Waters are many People. And from hence he deduceth the like Authority and Jurisdiction, to his Successors the Bishops of Rome.  
And a goodly Deduction it is, for which they are mightily beholden to St. Bernard, who could spy such a notable Declaration of St. Peter's sole Vicarship, and draw from thence such a fine Argument for the Pope's Authority, as no ancient Doctor besides himself was able to find in this place. But must his Fancies pass for substantial Proofs of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, which was raised to a great height in his days? At this rate no body need want Proofs for the most detestable Heresies, which he shall please to devise, if such Conceits as these be allowed for Arguments.  
And their second Annotation is like to this, of which, for aught I know, they may have the honour to be the Inventors, without the help of St. Bernard. For because our Saviour, when there were two Ships, went in that which was Simon's (Luke v. 3.) and thence taught the People, they gravely conclude, that undoubtedly he taught out of that Ship and not the other, on purpose to signify the Church resembled by Peter's Ship, and that in it is the Chair of Christ, and only true preaching. By which, it is evident, they intended the Reader should understand, that as Peter was Owner of that Ship, so he and his Successors are Rulers of the whole Church. For upon the following Verses (ver. 7, 10.) they observe how Peter had so much work, that he was fain to call for help, and joined those who were in the other Ship as Copartners in the Preaching of the Gospel. As much as to say, the Work was committed to him alone, who took in such help as he needed. He was the only Pastor, and all the rest (as was said before) his Curates. For, they tell us, all this aforesaid did properly mean, his Travels in the Conversion of the World, and his Prerogative therein before all Men; as is evident by Christ's special Promise made to him SEVERALLY and APART in this place, that he should be made the TAKER OF MEN. What then became of all the rest? Were they to sit still in their Ship and do nothing? O no, by no means; He giveth to other (say these Annotators) the like Office as to Peter 's Co-operators and Coadjutors.  
Before they said that Peter called them and joined them to himself, as Copartners in the preaching of the Gospel; but now having better, it seems, bethought themselves, they say Christ appointed them to this Office; yet still they are but as Peter's Co-operators, and Assistants. He was the Taker of Men, and converted the World; they only came in to his help, and brought all the Fish into his Net. Their Ship signified nothing, it was Peter alone that signified all. Their Ship stands for a mere cipher; his Ship is the Figure of the whole Church, where he governs, and they are but helps in Government, mere Co-adjutors unto him, the great, and indeed, only Bishop over all.  
Who can endure such Annotations as these, in which Men play with the Holy Scriptures as they please, and play with them in so saucy a manner, as to interpret them directly against the Scriptures. In which the Apostles call themselves Workers together with Christ (2 Cor. vi. 1.) employed by him to be his Co-operators, not St. Peter's; who was so far from being the Converter of the World, that his Travels and Pains were most bestowed in the least part of it. Which Bellarmine, I suppose, saw well enough, and therefore was so wise, as not to mention such Allegories. Which may serve to entertain the Fancies of silly People, but are the just scorn of those that have any measure of Spiritual Understanding: Who have heard perhaps, that the Fathers sometimes resembled the Church of Christ to Peter's Ship; but not that they ever dreamed of making him, and the Bishop of Rome after him, the Governor of the whole Church, because he was Master of that Ship.  
There is nothing more unaccountable than such a Conclusion, unless it be their pretence to Infallibility, who are mere Triflers when they meddle with the Holy Scriptures; which is the next thing I would have observed.  
Secondly; If the danger of wresting the Scriptures be a good reason why the common People should not read them, than no body at all should look into them; for their most learned Priests have wrested them more than the common People. And that against their Oath, whereby they are bound to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, who all agree that what was said to Peter in these three places belonged to all the Apostles; whose Writings, as the rest of the Scriptures, have by none been more foully abused than by the Popes of Rome, whose Interpretations and Applications of them, should they be collected in a Book, would make one of the most shameful pieces that hath been yet extant in the World.  
Thirdly; And let the Reader observe once more how ill they of that Church are agreed about the Interpretation of these three places of Scripture, which are the Subject of this Discourse.  
There are four Interpretations of the first place, Thou art Peter, etc. (as hath been elsewhere observed) which have had great Authors in the Roman Church, as well as others. Some by Rock understand Peter's FAITH in the Confession he had newly made (which by the way, Joh. Ekius 
* L. 1. contra Luther de Petri Primatu, c. 13.  says in the Age before us, no body denied to be the sense, and bids Luther name the Man that said otherways) Others CHRIST himself, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; others PETER, and others ALL the APOSTLES; which last is the Exposition of Paschasius Radbertus, the famous Broacher of Transubstantiation, whose words are these: 
* L. iv. in Matthaeum.  The Church of God is built not only upon Peter, but upon all the Apostles. Now they who follow the first and second sense, can find no Prerogative here for St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles; and they that adhere only to the third (in opposition to the other, as they now commonly do) are confuted by those who assert the fourth, that these words were spoken to all the Apostles.  
And indeed they are all forced to confess that nothing is here promised, which is not contained in the next words, And I will give thee the Keys, etc. But what this is, none of them can certainly tell. For one sort (such as Cajetan) hold the Keys contain more than binding and losing; which Bellarmine says is false; nay a thing never heard of in the Church. And consequently this Power of binding and losing being promised to them all (Matth. xviii. 18.) the Power of the Keys was promised to them all; and Christ promising nothing but what he performed, he gave therefore the highest Power to them all, which is contained in the Keys.  
Here they are at a great loss, and cannot agree how to bring themselves off from this difficulty, which strips Peter of his Supremacy. Therefore some have devised the abovenamed Conceit, that Peter alone had the Keys given him as their Ordinary, and they as his Legates. But this seems too gross unto others, who acknowledge they all had the Keys immediately from God, as much as Peter, if they be considered as Apostles, but not if they be considered as Bishops and Pastors; for these two Offices they fancy they had, the Apostolical and the Pastoral Dignity; the first immediately from Christ, the other by and under Peter. But this is in a manner, the same thing in a little finer dress, which was said before. Therefore others unsatisfied with this, that the Apostles should receive their Jurisdiction from Peter, have ordered the matter on this fashion, that Peter might use the Keys alone, but they not without him.  
But Sixtus Senensis cannot digest this; and therefore hath devised a threefold Power in Peter, of Apostleship, of Order, and of the Kingdom 
* Biblioth. Sanct. l. v. Annot. clxix. . With respect to the first he grants Paul was equal to Peter, because he had the Office of Preaching the Gospel not from Peter but from God, as much as Peter himself had. With respect to the second also he acknowledges the truth of what St. Jerome writes against Jovinian, that all the Apostles equally received the Keys (let the Catholic Scripturist mind that) and firmly laid the Foundation of the Church: and of what he says to Evagrius; All Bishops are equal, because all the Apostles were so. But then with respect to the last, viz. the Power of the Kingdom, and Authority over all Bishops and Churches, Peter was Head of all. That is, Peter must some way or other be above all the rest, but how they do not know.  
For Cardinal Baronius 
† Ad An. 34. n. ccv.  will have it that all the Apostles had the use of the Keys equally with Peter, by the ORDINARY Power of remitting Sins; and by this distinction expounds the forenamed words of St. Jerome. But his Brother, Cardinal Bellarmine, (being ware that if Peter had the Keys more than the rest, by an EXTRAORDINARY Power, his Authority would not descend upon his Successors) says quite contrary, that the Apostles had the Power of the Keys after an EXTRAORDINARY manner, and Peter only by an ORDINARY 
* L. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. xii. . Thus what one builds up, his Fellow pulls down. There is a Confusion of Tongues in this Babel, which they labour to erect. They cannot agree so much as about the Terms, wherein they deliver this new Doctrine. For it is a pure Invention, without any Reason, or any Authority for it: but it must be so, though they know not how, because it is their pleasure.  
As all the rest is, which they draw from the last place, Feed my Sheep. In which they say Christ gave the Power which he had promised: and therefore since he promised it to all, he gave it to all, if any thing was given here. And yet, against such clear demonstration, they will have this to be a peculiar Grant to Peter: no body knows how or why, but because it seems good to them. For this is so little approved by others, that they fairly grant the ancient Opinion was (and make it theirs) that these Words were not spoken to Peter in a Personal, but in a Public Capacity; as he represented all the Apostles. Insomuch that they can find nothing peculiar to him, in the word FEED, because of that of St. Austin's 
† De Ago Christ. c. 30. ; When Christ said to Peter, he said to all, Feed my Sheep: nor in the word SHEEP, because St. Ambrose saith (in the Place before named) Those Sheep not only Peter received; but he received them with us, and we received them with him. Which things are so evident, that it hath brought some in that Communion to this Conclusion, that out of none of these three Places, nor all of them together, can be gathered so much as the bare Primacy of St. Peter 
‖ Du Pin de antiqua Eccles. Discipl. dissert. iv. P. 311. , after that manner which Bellarmine collects it: but it must be gathered thus; that in those places Peter bears the Person of the Church, speaks for the rest of the Apostles, and is himself spoken unto by Christ in their Name, as the first and principal.  
Behold then the UNITY of which they boast in that Church; and how little CERTAINTY there is among them, even of the main point of their Faith, and as Bellarmine 
* Praefatio in L. de Poutifie. Rom.  makes bold to call it, the Sum of Christian Religion.  
It stands upon such a tottering Foundation, that, finding how little these Texts in the New Testament avail them, they ransacked the Old, to fetch some feeble support unto it from thence. And the late Catholic Scripturist fancies the Old Testament helps them thus far in this Point, that it teaches 
† Seventh Point. n. 1, 3. , That among the Priests of the Old Law, one was chosen successively to be the highest and chief Priest. Commanding all such Causes, as are Ecclesiastical Causes, to be brought to the Tribunal of the High Priest, and his Sentence to be obeyed even under pain of Death. And for this he alleges Deut. xvii. 8.  
But this only proves how ignorant such Catholics as he are in the Holy Scriptures. Where it is impossible for him to find that the High Priests were chosen successively; for they had that Dignity by Inheritance, in one certain Family, and not by Election. And as for the Power which he ascribes to them (though he promises us, in his Preface, to produce loud speaking Texts, for all the Points we mislike in their Religion) there is not so much as a whisper of it, in the place he alleges. The words of which he did wisely not to quote, but only the Chapter and Verse: Which we, that have liberty to read the Bible, can easily discern, speak loudly against him; and confute that Doctrine which he would confirm by them. If there arise, says Moses in that Text, a Matter too hard for thee in Judgement, between Blood and Blood, between Plea and Plea, and between Stroke and Stroke, being matters of Controversy within thy Gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of Judgement. And thou shalt do according to the Sentence, which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall show thee, etc.  
I need not recite the rest at large, to the end of the 12th Verse: For every understanding Reader must evidently see, without going further, that he speaks not a Syllable of the Power of the Highpriest, but of the Authority of the Supreme Tribunal, or Court among the Jews (which consisted of a great number of Persons) wherein all Controversies, which could not be ended in inferior Courts, were to be finally determined, without any Appeal.  
In which Supreme Court the High Priest was so far from being the Chief, that he was not so much as admitted to be a Member of it, unless he was a wise Man.  
And then, he did not bear an absolute Sway there, but the Sentence was passed by the whole Council; as appears (not merely from the Jewish Writers, but) from these repeated Admonitions in the very Body of this Law. THEY shall show thee the Sentence of Judgement, ver. 9 and thou shalt do according to that thing, which THEY of that Place show thee: and observe to do according to all that THEY inform thee (ver. 10.) according to the Sentence of the Law which THEY shall teach thee; according to the Judgement which THEY shall tell thee: thou shalt not decline from the Sentence which THEY shall show thee (ver. 11.) Where he must be blind who doth not see six flat Contradictions to the Assertion of this Catholic Scripturist, in this very place which he produces, to prove that Moses here sets up the Tribunal of the High Priest, and orders his Sentence to be obeyed upon pain of Death, in Causes Ecclesiastical.  
This was neither his Court, nor were Causes judged by his Sentence, nor is there one word here of Causes Ecclesiastical: but only of Civil; between Blood and Blood, Plea and Plea, Struck and Stroke: unless we suppose the Word we translate Stroke, relates to the Plague of the Leprosy, which belonged to the Priests to judge of it: but excluded Men from all Civil as well as Sacred Society.  
And if the utmost be granted that can be supposed [that there is mention here of something appertaining to Spiritual Causes] yet it must be also allowed by all Men of sense, that this Text speaks most of Civil Causes: and therefore can no more prove an absolute Obedience to be due to Spiritual than to Civil Governors.  
All which considered, I do not see but Dr. Reynolds had reason to say, they might as well call in the help of the first words of Genesis [In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth] as this Verse in Deuteronomy, to support the Pope's Supremacy. For there, as Pope Boniface VIII. very gravely observes (in the forementioned Extravagant) Moses says, God created the Heavens and the Earth, in the beginning, not in the beginnings; and therefore he who resists the Pope's Authority, resists the Ordinance of God; unless (with Manichaeus) he feign two beginnings (or Principles) which is false and heretical.  
And by such fine fetches as this Innocent III 
* Decret Greg. L. iv. Tit. 17. c. 13. per venerabilem.  proved his Power over the whole Church from these words in Deuteronomy: But he did not mince the matter (as this Catholic Scripturist doth) but stoutly affirmed that the Pope may exercise Temporal Jurisdiction, as well as Spiritual, not only in the Church's Patrimony, but in other Countries also, in certain Causes. For Deuteronomy being by Interpretation a Second Law, it proves by the very force of the word, that what is here decreed (in Deut. xvii. 8.) ought to be observed in the New Testament. And then the place which the Lord hath chosen, is the Apostolic See, viz. Rome; the Levitical Priests, are his Brethren the Cardinals; the Highpriest or Judge, is the Pope, the Vicar of him who is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec, appointed by God the Judge of Quick and Dead: the first sort of Judgements between Blood and Blood, is meant of Criminal and Civil Causes; the last, between Stroke and Stroke, is meant of Ecclesiastical and Criminal; the middle, between Plea and Plea, belongeth to both Ecclesiastical and Civil; in which if any one contemn the Sentence of the Apostolic See, he is doomed to die; that is, to be separated by the Sentence of Excommunication as a dead Man, from the Communion of the Faithful.  
Nothing is more evident than that, according to this Catholic Exposition of Pope Innocent, the Bishop of Rome is, by the Divine Law, Head of all Christians, as well in Civil Causes as in Ecclesiastical. This Text in Deuteronomy proves the one as much as the other: that is, it proves just nothing, but that the Mystery of Iniquity wrought very high, when such mystical Senses of Holy Scripture were swallowed glibly, to confirm the chiefest Mystery of the Romish Faith.  
Perhaps the Catholic Scripturist will say, that they now argue from this place only by a parity of Reason; that there must be but one High Priest among Christians, because their was no more among the Jews: To which they may have an Answer, when they prove that Judaea was as big as the whole Christian World.  
That's as hopeful a Task for him to labour in, as any he hath undertaken. And so I take my leave of him till he hath finished it; for it will be too tedious to follow him to his next Text out of the New Testament, Matth. xxiii. 2. which he calls an unanswerable Text concerning the High Priests of the old Law. Upon the Chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees; all therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe and do it. For no body but himself can see a Syllable here concerning the High Priests, who did not sit in Moses his Chair, but were the Successors of Aaron. And besides that, this place belongs to another Head of their Doctrine, about the Pope's Infallibility; of which if this be a proof, it likewise proves the Infallibility of Annas and Caiphas, and justifies those that crucified our Blessed Lord and Saviour.  
THE END.   

LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1688.   

ERRATA.  

PAge 110. Marg. line 4. for Tract, read Orat. xxix.  
P. 111. l. 2. r. of his Falls.  
Ib. Marg. penult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 134. l. 20. r. ransack.