Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
church_n bishop_n order_n ordination_n 3,692 5 10.0697 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A66484 An address to those of the Roman communion in England occasioned by the late act of Parliament, for the further preventing the growth of popery. Willis, Richard, 1664-1734. 1700 (1700) Wing W2815; ESTC R7811 45,628 170

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

very proper occasion to mention St. Peter's Authority if he had any such as they boast of as you may see 1 Eph. Chap. 1. Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas or Peter and I of Christ Is Christ divided or was Paul Crucified for you c. Those People certainly knew nothing of St. Peter's Supremacy nor St. Paul neither otherwise he would hardly have omitted to tell them of such an Infallible Cure for their Divisions In the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians we have many Arguments against St. Peter's pretended Supremacy St. Paul tells us there that he had no Superior that he had his Authority from none but Christ Ch. 1.17 He compares himself with St. Peter and says that the Ministry of the Vncircumcision was committed to him as the Ministry of the Circumcision was unto Peter Ch. 2. v. 7. He mentions St. Peter as of the same Authority with James and John when James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars Verse the 9th And a little further he tells us how he openly withstood Peter to the Face because he was to be blamed All these things might be urged at large but I content my self only tomention them But from all together I think I may well conclude that this Promise of our Saviour did not intend St. Peter any Power over the rest of the Apostles and consequently not any to his Successors if he had any over the Bishops of the Christian Church who are Successors of the Apostles in general tho' we do not deny but St. Peter had a Power over the whole Church but only as the rest of the Apostles had whose Care and consequently Authority was not consined to particular Churches as it was thought fit in order to the better Government of the Church that the Authority of Bishops should be since but was left at large and unconfin'd as to any certain limits either of Person or Places But suppose it should be granted that St. Peter had such Power as they affirm he had yet there is not one Word in Scripture about a Successor or about the vast Privileges of the Church of Rome in this Point And in truth there is as little evidence in the History of the Church for many Ages of this pretended Authority of the Bishop of Rome as there is in the Scriptures Rome was at the time of the Planting the Christian Religion a vast City and the Head of a very great Empire This must of it self give the Bishop of it a great influence in the Affairs of the Church which was almost all within the Roman Empire this made all sort of Communication with him easy by means of the mighty refort that was made from all Parts to the tal City and Greatness of his See did in course of Time bring great Riches to it and if we add to this that it was honoured by the Preaching and Martyrdom of two great Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul we see plain Reasons why the Bishops of Rome were likely to make a great Figure in the Church but as for real Authority such as is now pretended there do not appear any footsteps of it for several Ages As for Speculative Opinions We may not perhaps have so certain an account of them so long after unless of those which by some accident or other came to be Disputed But Government is a Practical thing and there happens every day Occasion to exercise it especially the Government of the whole Church and if the Pope had been from the beginning what he pretends to be and what he now makes himself his Power could have been no more a matter of Controversy than it could be made a Controversy whether there were any Christian Church for the same History that clears the one must at the same time clear the other The Old Body of History of the Christian Church is that of Eusebius which contains an account of the Affairs of it for above 300 Years now if the Pope were Monarch of the Church for those 300 Years we can no more miss to see it in that History than we can read any History of England for such a Number of Years and be uncertain whether we had here any King or no for so long a time No History hardly can be conceived so faulty or imperfect as to leave such a Matter a Secret or uncertain And yet I would Challenge any indifferent Person to read that History over and to shew me but any one thing in it from which it can be probably inferred that the Bishop of Rome was the Governour of the whole Church whereas were it truly so there must have been something of it in almost every Page Because all the business of the Church must in a manner roul upon him He must be the Person appeal'd to in almost all Difficulties we must have found his decrees in all the great Affaires that passed His Decretal Epistles must have been interspersed up and down in the whole Work his Authority must have put an end to all Schisms and Heresies or at least their Rebellion against him must have been reckoned as one great part of their Crime In a word as I said before the thing must have appeared as plain as that there was any King in England for these last 300 Years Next to that History the most likely place to find his Authority if he had any is in the Works of St. Cyprian which contain more of the Ancient Discipline and Government of the Church than is to be found in any other Old Author especially if we add further that a great part of his Works is only Letters to or from Bishops of Rome We could not but see in such a number of Letters whether he wrote to his Sovereign or not we should see it in the Titles which he gives him in his Style in the deference which he pays him In short the whole would some how or other shew that it was his Superior he was writing to but now the contrary to this is true He never speaks to him or of him in his Letters to other People but by the Name of Brother he freely Censures him and his Opinions just as he would do by any other Man and with as little deference or respect and he finally differed from him in a Matter of great consequence that of Re-baptizing Hereticks and called Councils of the Clergy and raised a great Party against him in it and yet was never that I have heard of charged either with Rebellion or Schism or Heresy upon that account but is to this day reputed a Saint in Heaven To conclude this Matter The whole Discipline of the Ancient Universal Church plainly shews that the Government of it was an Aristocracy especially that strict Account that Bishops were to give to their Fellow Bishops up and down the World of their Ordination and their Faith and other Matters in
order to hold Communion with one another which as it is left off since the Pope's Authority came up so the use of it must have been inconsistent with it for it was taking the Judgment of Things and Persons into their own Hands which must not have belonged to them but to the Sovereign High Priest In a word their forging so many Decretal Epistles for the Bishops of Rome for so many Ages is a plain Argument that they have no true Evidences of the exercise of such Authority in the Ancient Church as is now pretended to Had such Authority been then exercised they needed not have been put to the forging Evidences of it we could not easily have miss'd of as many true Decretal Epistles as we have now forged ones something or other we must at least have heard of theirs upon all the Emergent Controversies and Difficulties that happen'd in the Church In short We must have known of the Authority of the Popes of those Ages by the same methods we know of the Authority of the then Emperors by their Actions by their Laws by their Rescripts by their Bulls and by the whole Course of their Government And therefore we must not judge of a thing of that Nature by some few accidental and general Expressions in Authors or by Compliments which the Bishops of so great a See could not easily miss of The last Argument I shall make use of is this That it is not easily to be believed that Jesus Christ has left such an Authority in his Church without leaving at least some Rules about it such as how and by whom the Person who is invested with it is to be Chosen how his Authority is to be executed and what are the bounds and limits of it or whether it has any bounds or no These are Matters of great consequence which have been the occasion of a great many Schisms and might have been or may still be the occasion of a great many more Besides that so vast an Office without any set limits is mighty apt to degenerate into Tyranny and to betray Men into great Exorbitancies to tempt them to leave the Simplicity of the Gospel to Usurp upon the Rights of other People and to affect at last a Secular Dominion instead of a Spiritual Office In fact the want of some such Rules to limit and confine his Authority has made great differences in the Church of Rome about this Matter Some say he has a plenitude of Power others say that he is confined to the Canons of the Church some say that he is above a General Council others deny it some say that he has the Supreme Authority over all the World not only in Spirituals but also in Temporals that he has a Power to Erect Kingdoms to give away Kingdoms to deprive Princes of their Dominions and to take away the Obligation of Subjects to their Allegiance others there are who either qualify this with distinctions or else quite deny it lastly some there are who say that he is Infallible that what he solemnly determines ought to be a Rule and Law to all Christians and to be taken as the Dictate of the Holy Ghost but many there are who deny this too besides all which thereare many Disputes about his Power of granting Indulgencies his dispensing with Oaths and Vows and with the Laws both of God and the Church These are Differences of great moment both with relation to Faith and Practice and may carry Men as different ways as Light and Darkness are different or as different as Truth is from the most monstrous Heresies in the World Thus if the Pope be not above a General Council he may carry those into a State of Schism and Disobedience who believe he is if he cannot dispense with Oaths and Laws and Vows he may carry those into great Sins who believe he can if he cannot Depose Princes he may carry those into Rebellion Perjury Murther and all sorts of Villanies who are led by him and if he be not Infallible as he pretends to be God knows whither he may carry those who follow him And so on the other side if he has all these Prerogatives they are in as much danger who say that he has not If Christ had thought fit to appoint a Head of his Church I cannot imagine but He would have given the Church some Rules about his Power and the Obedience that was due to him And I cannot but wonder how the same Church holds Persons that are of so contrary Opinions in Matters of this consequence Let us only consider that single Point of the Pope's Infallibility I have already shewed that those who do believe it must have a different Rule of Faith from those who do not because his Determinations must be part of the Rule of their Faith and consequently they must have a different Religion from those who do not believe it But that which I would insist upon at present is this That for a Person to affirm himself to be Infallible and to be appointed by God for the Supreme Guide and Conductor of the Faith of Christians so that whatsoever he shall solemnly determine must be believed true without examining I say for a Person to affirm this of himself supposing it be false is downright Heresy and that as gross and dangerous Heresy as almost any Man can fall into Now to illustrate this I would only propose one thing Suppose Henry VIII instead of those other Matters in which he differed from the Church of Rome had affirmed only this one Point That God had made him Infallible and appointed him to be the Guide of all Christians Would this have made him a Heretick or w●…d it not There is no Question but they must say this would have made him and all his Followers so or if there be any worse Name by which they could call them for if he were in their Opinion a Heretick for pretending to be the Head only of the Church of England and that without Infallibility How much more must the other have made him so Now what is Heresy in one must be Heresy in every body supposing it equally false for Heresy is not made so by difference of Persons but by the Nature of Things All therefore that believe the Pope not to be Infallible must as much believe this Pretence to be Heresy in him and his followers as they would in the Case of Henry VIII for the Matter is the same in both and the Pretence supposed to be equally false in both but must be much more dangero●… in the Pope because more People ●…e like to be seduced by him That Reason which makes those of the Roman Church who deny his Infallibility yet not speak or think so severely of it as they would do of the same Pretence in another Man is realy so far from excusing it that it aggravates the Matter and makes it worse and much more dangerous than it would be in any other They do not speak out because the Person who pretends to this Privilege has great Authority among them and is at the Head of their Church whereas this is the very thing which makes such a Pretence the more pernicious that he has great Authority even with the whole Body of that Church and has a very great Number of them who say That if he determines Vertue to be Vice and Vice to be Vertue and the same if he determines Infidelity to be Faith yet he must be followed God knows how many People such a one may carry with him into Heresies or Immoralities or even to Hell it self Perhaps they think that God will take care of his Church and will not suffer any thing of that kind to happen but sure they have little reason to expect such a miraculous care over them who encourage the Pope and his Followers in such a pestilent Heresy by living in Communion with him and owning him for the Head of their Church But besides how do they mean that God will take care of his Church when he has suffered a Person whom they own to be the Head of it to fall into such a dangerous Heresy Will God preserve him that he shall fall into no other Heresies How do they know that or how can they expect it If any thing puts a Man out of the care and protection of God certainly such a false pretence as that is most likely to do it And as for those who will stick by such a Person notwithstanding they see the falseness of his pretences they have reason to expect that God should give them over to strong delusions rather than take any extraordinary care of them while they are in such a way I have now done with what I at first proposed to speak to And I cannot but hope that I have said enough to give you just reason to comply with the Laws of your Country in these matters This I am sure of that I have not willingly misrepresented any thing or made use of any reasoning which did not first convince my self If in this short Address I have not answered all the difficulties in these matters or if you desire satisfaction in the other points of Controversy betwixt us and your Church I must renew my request to you that you would consult some of our Divines or read some of those Books which have been written upon the several Subjects which I am perswaded can hardly fail of Convincing you if they are read impartially As for my self if I find by the success of this that any thing I can do may help forward your Conversion I shall be very glad to take any further pains in it And in the mean time shall not fail to put up my Prayers to Almighty God on your behalf that he would be pleased to take away all Prejudice to open your Eyes and bring you to the knowledge of the Truth FINIS
make a different Religion To instance in particular those that own General Councils to be Infallible must take their Decrees as part of the Rule of their Faith but now they that own the Pope for Infallible must besides take in all his solemn Determinations and so have a much larger Rule of their Faith than the other and in many Cases very different and what may be much more different than it is now for if he be indeed Fallible as many of them say that he is he may determine Vice to be Vertue and Vertue to be Vice he may fall into great Errors as other Fallible Men may do and as some of them in fact have done and yet those of that Church who own him to be Infallible must take these things as part of the Rule of their Faith and Manners These I take to be undeniable Consequences from the differences among them about their Infallible Judge and I think from all together I may well inferr that there is no such thing since it so much concerns the World if there be any to be at a certainty about it and yet the greatest part of Christians know nothing at all of the Matter and those who do pretend to know it are in truth as much at a loss about it as those that do not only they agree in a Name which leads them different ways perhaps all wrong and only more Infallibly secures them in Error But I would now speak a word or two to the several Pretences to it The first Pretender is the Pope who seems indeed to have the best Pretence for if God do think sit to appoint such a one a single Person who is always ready to hear and determine Matters seems most proper at least much more proper than a number of Men to be sent from all Parts of the World who can seldom meet and never without a great deal of trouble and this seems to be the most genuine Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the Pope the Center of Vnity makes Communion with him necessary and a Mark of a True Church and makes his Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches which is hardly Sense without Infallibility But as to his Pretence I shall consider it presently when I come to examine his Supremacy for if that fall his Infallibility must fall along with it One thing only I would observe here That it seems apparent from hence that the Primitive Church knew nothing of his Infallibility in that they took to that troublesome and chargeable and tedious way of ending their Disputes by Councils which supposing he be appointed by God to determine them and inabled to do it infallibly were not only useless and impertinent but indeed dangerous and very apt to turn Men from the way by which God had appointed the Church to be Guided A number of Men may be good for Counsel and Assistance of one that is Fallible but must be utterly unnecessary and an incumbrance to one that is Infallible And therefore since the Church has always made use of Councils either General or Provincial to determine Matters of Faith I may certainly conclude they knew nothing of his Infallibility Infallibility of General Councils As to General Councils it is not our present Business to enquire of what use they may be to the Church or what External deference is due to them if we could have those that are truly General but whether they are Infallible or not Now as to this I would only propose this one short Consideration That they are not of the appointment of Jesus Christ but begun 300 Years after Christ by Constantine now whatever Wisdom there may have been in calling so many Bishops together to endeavour by their Authority to Compose the Differences of the Church or to Establish good Discipline yet it was still a Humane Constitution and I know no way to annex Infallibility to what is so If 3 or 400 Men meet together each of which is confessedly Fallible they must altogether be so unless you can shew a Promise from Jesus Christ to secure them from Error Now if there be such a Promise as this we Protestants expect to find it in Scripture but however you your selves cannot pretend to it unless it be in Scripture or comes down to you by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles As to Scripture the very Name and Thing of a General Council is quite unknown to it and as for Tradition that could as little convey down any such Promise for the whole Thing was unknown in the Church for 300 Years not so much as the Name ever heard of As for the Meeting at Jerusalem of which we have an account in the 15 of the Acts of the Apostles it was only a Meeting of those that were then at Jerusalem upon occasion of a Complaint that was brought to them And it was a Meeting of Men most of which were by immediate Inspiration singly Infallible and therefore can be no President for a Meeting of Bishops from all Parts of the World And much less does this which was an accidental Meeting contein an Institution for the future and a Promise to make them Infallible when met in a Body together who singly are but like other Men. If it be said that they must be Infallible because they represent the Vniversal Church which is Infallible the Difficulty will still return for tho' we should grant the Church to be Infallible yet who appointed this Representations did Jesus Christ Has he annexed a Promise of Infallibility to it Without such a Promise as this there may be Infallibility in the Church and yet 3 or 400 Bishops or the Majority of them may be mistaken they may be a Number of Men packed together to serve a Turn they may be guided by Faction or Interest by their own Interest or the Interest of those who send them as in fact it has been more than once or if they are good Men that will not make them Infallible We may contrive as wisely as we please but we can never be certain to annex the Supernatural Assistance of God to our own Schemes To conclude this Head If the Infallibility you boast of be fixed in General Councils there was none in the Church for 300 Years when yet there was the most need of them there having been a greater number of dangerous Heresies in that Time than have been in the Church ever since But what is worse either there was no true Faith and Religion all that while or else it must be granted that we may have it without an Infallible Guide Christians were then at least in this respect in the same Condition that Protestants are now And I hope it will be granted that we need not desire to be in a better than they were The Last refuge for Infallibility is that it is in the diffusive Body of the Church But this I believe must be at last reduced to one or other
Instance we have of this kind is that of St. John in the Revelations falling down to Worship the Angel who we see puts him off it with the same kind of general Words that our Saviour uses in the former Instance See thou do it not I am thy fellow servant Worship God Rev. 22.18.19 Here I would observe as in the former Case that the Worship which the Angel rejects and appropriates to God is falling down at his feet to Adore him And in the next place I would observe that had Adoration been due to an Angel the true Answer to St. John had been that he should have a care not to mistake him to be God who was but an Angel and so give him more than was due to him but we see he throws off the whole without any reserve or distinction and for a Reason that will hold against all Creature Worship that he was his Fellow-servant In a word it had been no great secret for the Angel to tell St. John that God was to be Worshipped or that God only was to be Worshipped with an inward apprehension of his being God neither of these were any great Mystery or to the purpose And therefore his meaning must be that Religious Worship such as that Adoration was ought to be given to none but God I shall name but one more place of Scripture in which this Creature Worship is taken notice of and that is Coloss 2.18 Let no man beguile you of your reward by a voluntary humility and Worshipping of Angels The Apostle in this and the following Verses makes use of Two Arguments against the Worshipping of Angels First that it is a voluntary Humility that is tho' Men may pretend a great deal of Humility that it is not fit for such mean Creatures as they to go directly into the Presence of God but that they ought to apply to the Angels of God to be their Introducers yet all this is Humility of their own inventing such as God has not required at their hands 2. That this Worshipping of Angels is leaving Christ their Head He is the only Mediator betwixt God and Men and therefore applying to any other is leaving him who is the Head of the Church and then no wonder if it beguile us of our reward This Argument is very plain and very strong against the practice of Praying to Saints or Angels and it hath this one thing very observable in it That if this Text proves it unlawful to set up any more Mediators but Jesus Christ it must be understood of Mediators of Intercession for no body could so much as pretend that Angels were Mediators of Redemption as those of the Church of Rome without any ground at all make the distinction I might shew farther the Idolatry of this Practice of praying to Saints and Angels from this that it must suppose Divine Perfections in the Creatures to whom we pray as of Power to be able to supply our Wants especially in those Prayers that are put up to them directly to beg such or such Blessings from them and so of Knowledge because Prayer at least Mental Prayer supposes that the Persons we pray to know our Hearts and the secret thoughts and sincerity or insincerity of all the Men and Women in the World and that they can perfectly attend to them all at the same time which are Perfections that the Scripture never attributes to any but God and in the Nature of the thing it is hardly conceivable of any Creature but I shall content my self to have named these things and shall conclude this whole Matter with just proposing those two short Considerations 1. I desire it may be considered that in the Church of Rome there is no External part of Religion appropriated to God and incommunicable to Creatures but the Sacrifice of the Mass and if in the preceding Discourses I have overthrown the foundation of that there is then nothing at all remaining 2. I desire it may be considered that the Reasons commonly given to justify Prayers to Saints and Angels would if well followed hinder Men from ever praying to God at all as in fact this has much estranged Men from God in those Countries where they have had no Protestants among them to make them ashamed of it and even nearer our selves I believe we may justly say that at least Ten Prayers are put up to Creatures for one that is put up to God Of the Pope's Supremacy I now come to consider the Oath of Supremacy which consists of Two Parts I. A Declaration of the Unlawfulness and Impiety of taking up Arms against the King upon Account of His being Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope II. A Renunciation of the Pope's pretended Supremacy over the Church of Christ particularly over that part of it in this Kingdom As to the First of these I need not insist upon it becanse if I can prove the Second That the Pope has of right no Spiritual Power here the other must of course fall with it I would only observe before I proceed That if those of the Roman Communion among us do believe that the Pope has a Power from God to Excommunicate and to Deprive Princes of their Kingdoms for Heresy and that therefore they are bound to concur with the Pope as far they can to put his Sentence in Execution this must make them Enemies to all Protestants and consequently they have reason to expect that Protestants should have a care of them But if they do believe that God has not given any such Power to the Pope they have then Reason to have a care of their Guide who is doing what he can under pretence of Authority from God to carry them to Treason and Murther and all the Villanies which must follow an attempt to turn out their King and all his Protestant Subjects that will stand by him But I have in some measure taken notice of these things already and therefore shall not now inlarge upon them but proceed to consider the Grounds of the Popes pretence to Supremacy The Opinion of the Church of Rome with relation to his Supremacy is this That Jesus Christ made Saint Peter the Supreme Governor and Head as of all the rest of the Apostles so also of the whole Church That St. Peter was afterward Bishop of Rome and that by Divine Appointment his Successors the Bishops of Rome are to enjoy the same Supremacy over the Church which he had Their Opinion about the Supremacy of St. Peter is founded chiefly upon those Words of our Saviour Mat. 16.18,19 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They say our Saviour does by these Words promise to St. Peter to make him Monarch of the whole Church We say that tho' these Words were spoken to St. Peter upon occasion of his speaking to our Saviour immediately before yet that this Promise does as much belong to the rest
of the Apostles as it does to him and that therefore whatever Power may be here promised to him over the Church there is none promised over the rest of the Apostles and that consequently his Successors can claim nothing from hence over the Successors of all the Apostles the other Bishops of the Christian Church But to consider this Matter more particularly we may take notice 1. That the rest of the Apostles did not apprehend that St. Peter had here any peculiar Power promised him above them for we find that not long after they were contending who should be the greatest by which it's plain they did not then apprehend that our Saviour had already determined the Matter And as for our Saviour himself he does not at all endeavour to put them right as it was of great consequence he should do supposing that he designed St. Peter for their Governour but he endeavours to teach them all humility and not to affect Power or Authority over one another And the same instance we have in the Case of Zebedee's Children when their Mother came to desire that the one might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in his Kingdom that is that they might be the Persons of chief Favour and Authority with him their Petition plainly implies that they knew nothing of St. Peter's Prerogatives and our Saviour's Answer which you may see at large Mat. 20. implies as plainly that neither St. Peter nor any body else was to have such Power in the Church as the Bishops of Rome have since pretended to 2. I would observe that these Words of our Saviour to St. Peter do not actually invest him with any Power but are only a Promise to him and therefore the best way to see what was peculiar to him in it above the rest of the Apostles will be to see the fulfilling of the Promise and his being Actually invested in it That this is only a Promise appears from the Words themselves which run in the future tense I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And I believe they of the Church of Rome will not deny this because they say that the Apostles were not Priests till our Saviour made them so in the Institution of the Lord's Supper Now if we consider the Actual Investiture into this Power there is nothing peculiar to Saint Peter Our Saviour gives them all their Power together in Words much of the same Nature with that Promise before to St. Peter Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained And as for the Expression Vpon this Rock I will build my Church there is much the same said of all the Apostles The Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone 3. The best way to see whether St. Peter had any such Supremacy will be to see whether he exercised any whether he did any Acts or Offices which belonged to so high a Power There must be constantly so many occasions for the exercise of that Power that if he had any such we could not miss of Instances of it The Times of the Apostles were indeed Times of greater Simplicity than these later Ages and therefore I do not expect they should shew me St. Peter Commanding after the manner of our Modern Popes But if they can shew me any one single Act of Authority over the rest of the Apostles if they can shew me St. Peter of himself making Laws and Orders for the good Government of the Church or so much as presiding in the College of the Apostles if they can shew me any Appeals made to him or Controversies ended by him or among so many Controversies as happened any advice to repair to him or command to obey him I shall not shut my Eyes against the discoveries But to consider this Matter a little more particularly As soon as our Blessed Saviour was Ascended there was an occasion given to exercise this Supremacy in chusing a new Apostle in the room of Judas Acts 1. But we see that the method taken was that the whole Multitude chose Two and then they cast Lots which of the Two should be the Apostle And so as to the choosing of Deacons Acts 7. the whole Multitude chose them and presented them not to Peter but to all the Apostles to be Ordained If we look a little further into the Acts of the Apostles to Ch. 8. We shall find the Apostles not sent by St. Peter up and down to their business as occasion required but St. John and him sent by them to Samaria which was not very mannerly nor very fit had they known him to be their Sovereign Acts 11. we find those of the Circumcision contending with him and forcing him to give an account of his Actions and that without any Ceremony or deference proper for one in so high a Place and we see he patiently submits to it without standing upon his Prerogative of being unaccountable without chiding them for their Insolence or any thing of that kind Acts 15. we find a solemn Meeting of the Apostles and Brethren at Jerusalem where St. Peter speaks indeed as any other Man might have done but does not preside or determine any thing The Appeal was to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem not to him alone and if any thing in the whole Meeting was done Authoritatively by any single Person it was by St. James for he passes Sentence as you may see Verse 19. If we go to the Epistles we shall find as little evidence of his Authority as we have in the History of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles The first Epistle is that to the Romans not from St. Peter but from St. Paul where there is not the least notice taken either of St. Peter or of the great Prerogatives of that Church which one would think could hardly be avoided if St. Paul had known any thing of them nay he says some things which directly contradict their Pretences which you may see Chap. 11. He tells them there that he speaks to them who were Gentiles as being the Apostle of the Gentiles and if so St. Peter must not have had so near a relation to them because he was the Apostle of the Jews Then he proceeds to advise them to have a care of themselves lest they should fall away and be cut off as you may see ver 20 21. Be not high-minded but fear for if God spared not the natural Branches take heed lest he also spare not thee It 's plain that St. Paul at that time knew nothing of the great Privileges of that Church of its being the Mother and Mistris of all Churches of its being the Center of Church Vnity and of its being Infallibly secured from Error and Apostacy If we go on to the Epistle to the Corinthians we shall sind there a