PART II.

Shewing that the Church of Rome is not
the one Catholick Church of Christ.

Par. SIR. The last time you gave me the freedom
to Discourse with you, you said, I
remember, That the Catholick Church of Christ
was made up of all the particular Churches in the
World; Pray how come the Romanists to say, that
their Church is the Catholick Church?

Min. Because they would have us believe that
she is the Mistress of all Churches, and that all
ought to be in subjection to the Pope as Supreme
Head on Earth.
Par. That then is the meaning of some of their
late Authors, when they say, That it is not the particular
Diocess or Province of Rome that they call
the Catholick Church, but the Church of Rome, and
all that are join'd in communion with her, and believe
as she believes.
Min. Yes, it is so: But it's no hard matter to
shew the weakness and falshood of this Assertion.
Par. Before you enter upon that, pray inform
me, Do not some of the Fathers call the Church of
Rome the Catholick Church? The Papists tell us so in
their Writings.
Min. Yes, they do, and other Churches are call'd
so as well as the Roman, and all by way of distinction
from Schismatical and Heretical Churches:
So we read of the Catholick Church in Smyrna, and
the Catholick Church in Alexandria, and many others
might be instanc'd in: 'Twas the common
Appellation for every Church that held the true Catholick
Faith: that is, this is a Catholick Church, and
this Church, with the others that profess the same
Faith, is the one Catholick Church.
Par. Why then the Roman Church, provided she
held the true Catholick Faith, with all those in communion
with her, and that believe as she believes,
might be call'd the Catholick Church?
Min. Yes, if by all that believe as she believes,
be limited only to those Articles contain'd in Scripture,
and summ'd up in the Three Creeds, separated

D

from the many gross Errors she has added to
them, then the Church of Rome, and all those
others, are the Catholick Church: But then this is no
more than what may be said of any Church as well
as the Roman; and the English Catholick Church, with
all that hold communion with her, is the one Catholick
Church of Christ on Earth, as well as the Roman
Catholick.
Par. I perceive you think they mean something
more by believing as she believes, than the Faith contain'd
in the Scriptures.
Min. No doubt they do; they mean those that
acknowledg Subjection to her, and believe all at
large, what not only the Scriptures, but that Church,
pretending to unscriptural Traditions, declares to
be Articles of Faith; viz. those Twelve of Pope
Pius the 4th; and then the Church of Rome, with
all that believe as she believes, is not the Catholick
Church, but very unsound and corrupt parts of it.
Par. Now, Sir, if you please, I'll tell you what I
have met with in their late Authors, to prove the
Pope to be Supreme, and that the Church is call'd
Catholick, by agreeing with that of Rome, and yielding
Subjection to him.
Min. Do so, and I'll give you as plain an Answer
as I can to them.
Par. They say, that Christ invested St. Peter
with a paramount power and jurisdiction, not only
above, but over all the rest of the Apostles; and
that the Pope derives it from him, as being his Successor.
Min. This they say, but they cannot prove any
thing of it, either that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome,

or had such a power; or if he was Bishop of Rome,
and had such a power, that the Pope has an hereditary
Right to it.
Par. I have heard it indeed controverted, whether
St. Peter was ever Bishop of Rome?
Min. The matter will bear very well a Dispute:
for tho' St. Peter might be very instrumental in
founding and building up that Church; yet it is not
very likely he was formally a Bishop of it, it being
beneath the Dignity of an Apostle, who, as such,
was Bishop of the whole Catholick Church, to sit
down for some considerable time, Bishop of one part
of it: This is such another absurd degradation of
him, as to say, the Pope is Rector of some little Parish.
Par. But certainly they have some proof for what
they affirm so confidently, and on which they lay
so great a stress.
Min. Their chief proof is out of Eusebius's Chronicle,
where he relates, that St. Peter sate at Antioch
Seven years; after which he travell'd to Rome,
where he resided Five and Twenty years. But this
passage is suspected to be put in on design, it being
left out in Jos. Scaliger's Greek Edition; and indeed
seems to be contradicted by Eusebius himself, in his
Ecclesiastical History; where he tells us, that St. Peter
having preach'd the Gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, &c. at the last, or at the end (that
is) near the approach of his death, being at Rome,
was put to death.
Par. I observ'd in your reciting the Testimony
out of Eusebius, that St. Peter is said to be Bishop
of Antioch, before he came to Rome: It should seem

D2

then, that if Succession gives a Right, the Bishops
of Antioch, where St. Peter was first Bishop, have a
better plea for the Supremacy than the Bishops of
Rome.
Min. You have inferr'd right: But tho' both be
granted, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
Succession conveighs a Right, yet neither signify
any thing, unless St. Peter himself had such a power;
for he could not derive upon them what he had
not himself. Let me therefore hear the proofs you
were mentioning the Romanists bring for St. Peter's
Supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction.
Par. The first and chiefest they urge, is those
words of our Saviour, Thou art Peter, and on this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. They make a great
noise about this, and raise mighty triumphs upon it.
Min. I know they do; but as great a cry as they
make, here is but little wooll; and being conscious
of the weakness of the Argument; they would
help it out with noise and confidence.
Par. But is not, On this Rock, to be understood of
St. Peter's Person?
Min. It's very probable, No: For St. Peter some
while after these words spoken, denied his Master,
and so for a time denied the Faith; and now if the
Church be built on him as the foundation, the
foundation failing, the Church for that time must
have failed too, contrary to what our Saviour promised,
that it should not.
Par. What then is the meaning of it?
Min. One or both these Two things: (1.) St.
Peter's Faith: St. Peter having said before, Thou art

5

Christ, the Son of the Living God; our Saviour answer'd,
Thou art Peter, and on this rock, on this Faith
thou hast now made profession of, I will build my
Church.(2.) What our Saviour here said of St. Peter,
might be said in the name of all the rest of the Apostles;
As he made that confession of Faith in the
name of them all, so this honourable character
might be conferr'd on him in the name of all too;
and this seems the more probable, because the same
thing, in a manner, is in other places said in common
of all of them.
Par. Yet it should seem, that something peculiar
is in these words conferr'd on St. Peter: In the
foregoing words St. Peter's forwardness and zeal to
confess Christ, appear'd above the rest; St. Peter answer'd
and said, Thou art Christ, &c. And therefore
why should not some particular Badg of Honour be
meant in these words, to be fixt on him, as the reward
of it?
Min. It may be there is; and if any thing, this
may be it; That he should have the honour to be
the first Founder of the Christian Church, both amongst
Jews and Gentiles; Amongst the Jews, when
at one Sermon, St. Peter being the first and chief
Speaker, no less than Three Thousand were converted
to the Faith of Christ: amongst the Gentiles,
when he was commanded by God in a Vision, to
repair to Cornelius, and to instruct him in the
Christian Doctrine, who was the first Convert, we
read of, to the Faith of Christ amongst the Gentiles.
Par. You have fully satisfied me, that there is no
proof in this Text for St. Peter's Supremacy, and

consequently not for the Pope's, if he be his Successor.
Will you give me leave to name another
Argument of theirs? They tell us, that St. Peter
is always nam'd first in the Catalogue of the Apostles;
and that first does not there signifie first in
the order of numbring: for then it would have followed,
the second, and the third, as the other Apostles
are named; but it does not: By first therefore
it should seem, is meant, a primacy of power and jurisdiction.
Min. 'Tis true, St. Peter is always set first in the
Evangelists Rolls of the Apostles; but he is not so
in other places of Scripture, where we find sometimes
James, sometimes Paul and Apollo, and sometimes
Andrew numbred before him: But let it be
granted, that for the most part he is named before
the rest of the Apostles, all it can signify is this,
That upon the account of the eminency of his Faith,
the fervour of his zeal in the Cause of his Master,
of his being first called to the Apostolical Office, a
primacy of Order and Honour is due to him; And
more than this, a primacy of Power and Jurisdiction,
it cannot signify, it being so plainly contrary
to other Scriptures, and those innumerable.
Par. I was going to desire you, since their Arguments
for St. Peter's Supremacy are so weak, to
shew how strong our proofs are against it.
Min. To give you them briefly; We find our
Saviour investing all the Apostles with equal powers,
and deriving on all the same mission which
he himself had receiv'd from God; impowering all
to Preach, Plant and Propagate the Faith; to feed
and rule the Flock of Christ, committing the same

Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to one as well as
another; breathing the same Holy Ghost on all;
forbidding all ambitious attempts amongst them,
who should be greatest; promising indifferently to
all Twelve Thrones to sit upon, judging the Twelve
Tribes of Israel; does not St. Paul say, Christ set
in his Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets - ?
He does not say, first St. Peter, but first Apostles,
all the Apostles were first. Was not St. Peter so
far from challenging, much less exercising any such
Superiority over the Apostles, that we find him
stiling himself their fellow Presbyter, and submitting
to the Orders of the Apostolick Colledg? Besides,
are not St. James and St. John said in Scripture
to be Pillars, as well as St. Peter? Are not the
whole Twelve Apostles equally stiled the Twelve
foundations of the New Jerusalem? Does not St.
Paul challenge an equality with the chiefest Apostles?
And did he not, on occasion, withstand St.
Peter to the face, which he neither ought, nor
durst to have done, had he been his Superior and
Lord?
Par. The proof is clear and full beyond exception;
I see plainly the Pope cannot justify his Supremacy
by virtue of any right, as St. Peter's Successor.
But whence had he it then? How came his
Holiness to rise to this height of Power and Dominion?
Min. The Truth is, how large an Empire soever
his Holiness now claims over all other Churches,
his Authority, in the beginning, was no greater
than that of his Brother Bishops; the title was the
same, and his Holiness lay in common to them all:

A Precedence indeed was given him, because he
was Bishop of the Imperial City; Addresses were
made to him, because he was near the Court and
the Royal presence; Appeals were brought him,
because he was powerful, and as able to defend as
to determine; And that Church was often made
the standard of the Catholick Faith, because for a
time it continued pure and uncorrupt, whilst almost
all others were overgrown with Arianism
and other Heresies. But of these Honours that
were given him, he made advantage to climb higher;
from a Priority of place, he soon challeng'd a
superiority of Power; from being next to the Emperor,
he aspir'd to be next to God; from being
an Arbitrator, he set up for a Judg; and when he
was grown so great, that none durst controul him,
he would be an unerring Judg, and grew Infallible.
Par. These, I perceive, were the steps of the
Papal Pride and Empire; But I have been told, the
Pope was beholding to that bloody Regicide Phocas
for the title of Universal Pastor.
Min. I shall shew you that presently; but 'twill
not be amiss here to inform you, That the Pope's
challenging a Supremacy of power over the whole
Christian Church, is not only contrary to Scripture,
but to the Ancient Canons of the Church.
Par. I have heard and read as much in some of
our own Authors; but pray, which are those Canons?
Min. They are chiefly four; or, if you will, but
one, four times repeated and confirm'd, in the
first Four General Councils succeeding one another.
Par. I shall be glad to hear them read in order, if
you have them at hand.

Min. I can easily gratify you in this matter: The first
is that famous one, the 6th Canon of the first General
Council of Nice, call'd by Constantine the Great, Anno
Dom. 325. which Decreed, That the Bishop of Alexandria
shall have the same power within his Province,
as the Bishop of Rome had in his. The words of the
Canon are these, Let Ancient Customs still take place,
those that are in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, That the
Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these; because
such also is the Custom of the Bishop of Rome.
Par. What do you infer from this Canon?
Min. I infer that which is obvious to every eye, viz.
That the Bp. of Rome had not then an Universal power
over all Christian Churches, since the Bp. of Alexandria
was to exercise the same jurisdiction in his own
Province, as the Bp. of Rome did in his.
Par. You'l be pleased to go on to recite the other
Canons you mention'd?
Min. The second is, the 3d Canon of the 2d General
Council held at Constantinople by the command of Theodosius
the Emperor, Anno Dom. 380, which Decreed,
That the Bp. of Constantinople, upon the account of its
being new Rome, or the Seat of the Empire, should have
the priviledg of Honour next to the Bp. of Rome.
Par. How does this Canon make against the Pope's
Supremacy?
Min. As it declares what kind of primacy the Bp. of
Rome had above other Bps, and on what bottom it
stood; viz. a primacy of Honour, or the first place;
and because Rome, of which he was Bp, had been the
Imperial City. Now the Council Decreed, That the
Bp. of Constantinople should have the same Honour next
to him, and for the same Reason; because Constantinople

E

was become New Rome, That is, the Seat of the
Empire was remov'd thither.
Par. You have made this very plain to me; What is
the 3d Canon?
Min. It is the 8th Canon of the 3d General Council
at Ephesus, Anno Dom. 431. It runs thus, Let the same
course be observ'd in other Diocesses and in all Provinces
every where, That none of the holy Bishops seize upon
another Province, which was not of old and from the
beginning under his power.
Par. This Canon needs no exposition, 'tis so evident;
Pray, What do the Romanists say to it?
Min. Some of them deny it to be a Canon of this
Council, and (as they usually serve any thing that is
against them) have endeavour'd to strike it out from
amongst the Acts of it. Others say, it respected
a particular Case, the exemption of the Cyprian Bps.
from the encroachments of the Patriarch of Antioch,
who pretended that it belong'd to him to ordain their
Metropolitan. Now tho' this be granted, yet the
Decree passing in general words, without any reserve
for the Bp. of Rome, must be supposed to conclude him,
as well as any other, to be an ambitious Usurper, if he
claim'd or exercis'd any jurisdiction over any Church,
that was not from the beginning under his power.
Par. This is so full to the purpose, that it may well
be the last
Min. Yet I told you there was a fourth; 'Tis the
28th Canon of the 4th General Council Assembled at
Chalcedon, Anno Dom. 451, which ordain'd, That the
Bp. of Constantinople should enjoy equal priviledges with
the Bp. of Rome, there being the same reason for the
one as the other, Constantinople then being the Imperial
Seat, as Rome had been.

Par. I dare say the Romanists do not let this Canon
pass without some dirt thrown upon it.
Min. You are a notable guesser; some serve it as
they do the forequoted Canon of the General Council
of Ephesus, leave it out of their Editions of the Councils;
others tell the World, That this Council was not
free, and the Canon extorted by tumultuous Importunity,
when as all the Fathers testified their owning of
it by their Subscriptions; others, That it's spurious,
and put in clandestinely; But how then came the
Pope's Legats, who were present at the Council, so vehemently
to oppose it? Had there been no such Canon,
there would have been no need of such an opposition.
Others, That the Fathers at this Council offer'd the Title
of Supreme and Universal Pastor to the Pope; and
all, because the persons delegated by the Pope to inform
the Council against Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria,
do in their accusation against him, presume to
give their Master that glorious title. All are calumnies
to bespatter and bring into discredit a Canon that lies
so heavy upon them and their Cause too.
Par. Truly these Canons are very plain and manifest,
and fully prove, not only the right of jurisdiction that
every Church has over its own Members, but withal,
that the Pope has no right of jurisdiction over all. But
I think there is no need of such kind of proof, after so
express and pregnant an one from Scripture against St.
Peter's Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, on
which chiefly the Pope's is grounded.
Min. It may be not; But the Church of England
owning the four first General Councils, and often appealing
to them, I was willing to let you see what they
say as to this point. Other Canons also there are very

E2

Ancient, founded on the Independent power every
Church has over those in Communion with her, forbidding
Appeals to be made to forreign and transmarine
Churches; requiring, That no person excluded the Communion
of one Church, should be receiv'd by another; But
these are enough.
Par. Now, you are among the Ancients, you may
please to let me see, what other proof there is in Antiquity,
That the Bishops of Rome in the first Ages had
no such extravagant Power and Authority over the
Church.
Min. I must do it briefly then; The Bishops of Rome
began very early to aspire after it, to discover their
ambitious inclinations that way; But they were always
withstood, and censur'd for it by other Bishops.
Par. Are there many instances of this nature?
Min. Yes, too many; I'l mention some few, and
shall begin with that of Pope Victor, Anno Dom. 196,
who, because the Eastern Bishops would not comply
with the custom of the Church of Rome, about the
time of keeping Easter, rashly and with a Spirit favouring
too much of pride and arrogance, threw them
under the sentence of Excommunication.
Par. It looks indeed like a very severe censure on so
small an occasion.
Min. 'Twas thought to be so then by all good men;
The whole Christian World was amaz'd at it, and many
eminent persons, especially that meek and holy
Bishop Irenæus, sharply chid and rebuk'd him for it.
Par. This Instance I have often met with in our
own Authors.
Min. I'l give you another: 'Twas not long after
this, when the Eastern Churches, and especially those

in Africk, thought it necessary that persons Baptiz'd
by Hereticks, should be Baptiz'd anew; Stephen then
Bishop of Rome was so highly displeas'd herewith, that
he declar'd he would hold no Communion with them,
refus'd to see and speak with the Bishops that were deputed
to give him an account of their practice, and to
shew their Reasons for it; fell foul on St. Cyprian Bishop
of Carthage, and Firmilian Bishop of Cæsarea, and
treated both with undecent language on this occasion.
Par. I wonder how these two eminent Bishops resented
this hard usage from their Brother-Bishop?
Min. Very grievously; as they had reason; both
censur'd him for it as done out of a proud and arrogant
Spirit; and St. Cyprian afterwards calling an Assembly
of Eighty seven Bishops to Carthage to debate
this point, opened the Synod with a notable Speech,
taxing the Bishop of Rome with pride and ambition,
shewing that no one ought to make himself Bishop of
Bishops; that all Bishops had equal power in their respective
Diocesses, and could no more be judg'd by
others, than be themselves Judges of others.
Par. I am glad to hear this account of St. Cyprian,
because I observe the Romish Authors cite him often
on their side.
Min. I know they do; and many other Fathers also,
but with what little reason I shall shew you presently:
However this has brought into my mind, a Saying or
two more of St. Cyprians to our purpose; The other
Apostles, saies he, were indeed that which Peter was,
endowed with equal Consortship of Honour and Power;
Again, Our Lord gave to all the Apostles after his resurrection
an equal power, saying, As the Father hath sent
me, so send I you. To the same purpose St. Chrysostom,

St. Paul sheweth, saith he, that each Apostle did enjoy
equal dignity: And yet more clearly, when comparing
St. Peter and St. Paul together, he makes St. Paul at
least equal in Honour to St. Peter.
Par. These two Instances you have mentioned are
very pat to the business; but I have an imperfect remembrance
in my head of some Bishop that took upon
himself the title of Universal Pastor, and the Bishop
of Rome call'd him the forerunner of Antichrist for
it; would you'd please to give me an account of that
Story?
Min. I design'd to have done it, had you not mention'd
it, and 'tis this; In the year 589. John Bishop of
Constantinople, that he might bear up the better against
the growing greatness of the Bishops of Rome, procur'd
for himself in a Synod conven'd in that City, about
the Cause of Gregory Bishop of Antioch, the title of
Oecumenical or Universal Bishop: But this was so passionately
resented at Rome, that two Bishops of that
See, one after another, Pelagius and Gregory the Great,
loaded the Title with all the names of ignominy and
reproach that could be invented; and amongst others,
stiled it Devilish and Antichristian.
Par. It may be after all this, the Bishop of Constantinople
had no ill design in taking the title upon him.
Min. It does not appear that he had; But as the
Roman Empire was then stiled the Universe, or the
whole World, and Constantinople the Imperial Seat; so
were the Bishops over the great Churches in that Empire,
and especially the Bishop of Constantinople the
greatest of all, stiled Universal Bishops; so that it
should seem the Bishop of Constantinople took up that
great title, only the better to correspond with the

greatness of the City o're which he was Bishop.
Par. Then, the Bishop of Constantinople took on him
that Title rather as a badge of Honour, than any accession
of power.
Min. Yes surely; For had he design'd an unlimited
jurisdiction over the whole Church by it, it's not probable
that the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, that
were most of them at that Synod, would have consented
to it, and thereby at one cast have thrown away
all their power.
Par. I have been told, it's no unusual thing in Antiquity,
for a particular Bishop to have the title of
Universal of Oecumenical Pastor bestowed upon him;
What may be the reason of that?
Min. I shewed you this the last meeting we had,
because every Bishop is Bishop of the Catholick Church;
and tho' for the more advantageous governing of it,
each Bishop has his part particularly to oversee, yet is
he in some measure entrusted with the care of the
whole; as the Church is but one, and the Episcopal
Office one, yet each Bishop has the whole Episcopal
power, and is Bishop of the whole Church.
Par. But if this was all the Bishop of Constantinople
aim'd at by that title, viz. greater honour and dignity;
calling himself the Universal Bishop, as being Bishop
of the Imperial City of the Universe; What
made the Bishops of Rome so to storm at it, as you said
they did?
Min. Probably, as may be gathered from the aspiring
temper of several of the Bishops of that See, 'twas
because they were out-done in their own way, they
had been long driving at that title, and another stept
in before them, and run away with it.

Par. 'Twas not then, I perceive, the title they so
much quarrel'd with, as the persons that wore it; Had
the Bishops of Rome had it conferr'd on them by a
Synodical Canon, it would have been but a very becoming
and graceful title; but they being past by, and
others crown'd with it, it must be proud and ungodly.
Min. I believe you have hit it; That, it's very likely,
was the true reason of all their spleen and bitterness;
The title of Universal Pastor was foul and abominable
only, till the Bishops of Rome could get it set on their
own heads; for, as much as Pope Gregory exclaim'd
against it, and condemn'd it in the Bishop of Constantinople,
His immediate Successor but one, Pope Boniface
the third, got it taken from the See of Constantinople and
affixt to his own of Rome.
Par. Here was a quick change indeed from one extream
to the other; one Pope with all his might rail'd
against it, another within Twelve Months with all his
subtilty courted it; Pray, How came Boniface by it?
Min. After the basest and vilest manner that can be
thought of; 'Twas by flattering and courting the most
execrable Phocas, That most barbarous Traytor and
Murderer, who by embruing his hands in the Blood of
his Prince, and butchering his Children before his
eyes, possess'd himself of his Crown and Dignity.
Par. Certainly, no Christian, much less a Christian
Bishop can be suppos'd to fawn on such a Monster of a
Man as this Tyrant and Usurper is represented to be.
Min. Yet no sooner was this abominable wretch in
the Throne, but Pope Gregory first, and then Boniface
a little after (Sabinian that was Pope betwixt, dying
in half a year,) sooth'd and complemented him at that
rate, that one would have thought him to have been a
Constantine or an Antoninus.

Par. So then by flattering Applications and wicked
Compliances, a grant of it was obtain'd from Phocas.
Min. Right: Phocas won by the dextrous Addresses
and fawning Insinuations of Boniface, puts out at last
an Edict peremptorily requiring, that the Church of
Rome be stil'd and esteem'd the head of all Churches,
and the Pope Universal Bishop.
Par. I perceive they got it basely, and by the Favour
of the basest of men; Have their methods been
any better to extend and enlarge their power and dominion?
Min. No surely; The Eastern Empire sinking apace
by the successful Invasions of the Saracens, and the Western
much broken by the irruptions of the Lombards,
the Bishops of Rome ever watchful to serve themselves
of all occurrences, took the opportunity while the
Emperors hands were full, to play a game for themselves;
and what by the bounty of some Princes, particularly
of Pepin King of France, who gave them the
Lands his Father Charles had won from the Lombards;
and by the weakness and timorousness of others embroil'd
in forreign Wars, or distracted with Civil Commotions,
they have at last rais'd themselves to that
height of Power and Authority, as to be able to Lord
it over Gods Heritage, and to give Laws, a new Faith,
I had almost said, a new Gospel to the Christian World.
Par. Sir, I am very much engag'd to you for this
Discourse; you have made it very plain, that the Supremacy
of Power and Jurisdiction the Pope claims
over all other Churches, is illegal and usurp'd. But
tho' he has not a right of Supremacy over all Churches,
he may have over some; and they tell us his claim to
the English Church is clear and unquestionable.