litterally extended to all particular Churches what foever. As the Churches of Parthia, Ethiopia, India, or Scythia; in which the Gospel was preach'd by St Thomas, St Bartholomew and St Andrew; but not by St Paul. Nor did he ever write to any of thofe Churches.

G. What means then his Saying, So I ordain in all Churches?

L. Sr, it means, that St Paul was uniform in his Orders and Inftructions. It means, that what he or dain'd in the Church of Corinth, he likewife ordain'd in all the other Churches, that were under his immediate Direction. For tho every Apoftle had a general Commmission to teach all Nations, and a Furifdiction over all the Churches, yet their Labours were divided, and every Apostle did not in Perfon teach every Nation, but only that, which fell to his particular Lot. So that St Paul's Saying, and fo I ordain in all Churches, cannot be understood of Churches which he never inftructed either by Letter, or by Word of Mouth, but fuch as were particularly under his Inf pection. And is it not then very likely, that if St Peter had faid as much of himself, we should have improved it into an Argument for his Superiority over the other Apostles! You tell me however, that if we had fuch a Decretal for St Peter's Supremacy, we should make good Use of it. Then, Sr, 'tis very lucky for us that we have it not; for it might have tempted us to trifle as fome of our Neighbours do.

* G. But pray, My Lord, is this your Way of Anfwering? The Apostle pofitively declares, So I ordain in all Churches. And you make bold to contradict him, and tell him, he had nothing to do to ifjue forth his Orders for any but those under bis more immediate Inspection. As if

* Vind. pag. 35.

St Paul did not understand his own Busineß, and the Extent of his Power, till you came to direct him, and Ittle it for him.

L. Really, Sr, tho I am far from Presuming to contradict St Paul, or question his understanding perfectly well his own Bufin ß, and the Extent of his Power; yet I am ftill of Opinion, first, that he never either travelled, or fent Letters into Parthia, Æthiopia, India, or Scythia. And 2dly, that he could not ordain Things in Churches, he neither ever faw, nor ever writ to. So pray, Sr, be not so uppish, till you be fure at leaft, that you speak Senfe.

G. My Lord, in the Acts of the Apostles it is » told, that St Paul was at Rome preaching the Gofpel two whole Years together. Act. 28. ¥. 30. But » not a Word of St Peter's being there. pag. 5. 6.

39

L. To the best of my knowledge, Sr, and I am fure of your's too, the Ads are a Hiftory of St Paul's Life, and not of St Peter's. And is it fuch a Wonder, that an Historian writing the Life of one Man, should not run aftray from his Subject to infift upon Particulars relating to another

"G. As St Paul planted the Gofpel at Rome, fo » he wrote to the Church there as his particular Charge. For he fays, Rom. 11...16. I speak to you » Gentiles, in as much, as I am the Apostle of the Gen. » tiles, I magnify my Office, pag. 6.

L. Good, Sr, did St Paul plant the Gospel at Rome before he ever was there? That's News indeed. The Gospel then had been planted at Rome fome Years before he wrote his Epistle to the Romans ; which was 15 Years after St Peter had fix'd his Seat there. And to shew he never had been there, he writes thus to'em Now I would not have you be igno rant, Brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, but was let hitherto. Rom. I. . 13. In Effect, is

was towards the End of his Life, he came to Rome and when he was there, he contributed very much towards the Encrease of Chrift's Flock by his conti nual Preaching for the Space of two Years amongst them.

G. My Lord, As St Paul was the Apostle of the a = Gentiles, fo St Peter was the Apostle of the Jews; « they were his particular Charge; and he himself « allow'd that the Gospel of the Uncircumcifion was com- «8 mitted to Paul, as the Gospel of Circumcifion was to « himself. Gal. 2. v. 7. 8. 9. And accordingly he di- « rected his Epistle to the Jews of the Difperfion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Afia, and « Bithynia. But he wrote not to the Gentiles, parti- « cularly not to Rome; which would feem strange, a if he had been Bishop of Rome, and that had been « his chief and principal Charge. pag. 6. «

L. Pray, Sr, is it fo very strange he should not write particularly to thofe, amongst whom he refided for the moft Part? Did St James direct his Canonical Epistle to the Church of Ferufalem, whereof he was Bishop? And why then is it fo ftrange, that St Peter should not write to the Romans?

But as to what you fay, that St Paul was the Apos file of the Gentiles, and St Peter of the Jews: I anf =wer, that as Chrift was a Minister of the Circumcifion. Rom. 15. v. 8. So his chief Vicar took that Part of the Vineyard to cultivate in a more particular Manner to his Share. But neither was his Jurifdiction confined to the Jews, nor St Paul's to the Gentiles. Did not God choose that the Gentiles by Peter's Mouth should hear the Word of God, and believe? Act. 15. V.7.

whom even the firft Gentiles were baptiz'd at Cafarea, Act. 10. V. 48. So we find St Paul preaching in the Synagogue. Act. 13. V. 2. Act. 18. v. 4. 11. as a chofen Veffel to bear Chrift's Name before the Gentiles.

and Kings, and Children of Ifrael. Act. 11. v. 15. In a Word, St Peter and St Paul, and the other Apostles as well as they, had Jurifdiction over all Chriftian Churches, whether of converted Jews or Gentiles; tho their Labours were divided, according as Occafion required, or as they were directed by the Divine Spirit. All which is no Proof, that St Peter was not the Head of the Apostles.

» G. St Paul's bold Withstanding him to the Face » before the whole Church of Antioch in behalf of » the Gentiles, whom he had misled, fearing them who » were of the Circumcifion, shews the Care St Paul took » of those, who were more particularly his Charge; » and feems a Behaviour not very fuitable to the » fupreme Head of the Church both Jews and Gentiles, if St Paul had known any Thing of St Pe »ter's being fo conftituted by Chrift. pag. 6.

L. Sr, his bold Withstanding is a Mark indeed of his Zeal; but neither of his Superiority, nor Equality to St Peter in the College of the Apostles. Is not the Council bound to withstand the King, if he propofes any Thing contrary to Law, or the natural Liberties and Properties of the Subject? And will you infer from thence, that the King has no Superiority or Authority over his Council? Suppofe the Bifhop of Canterbury should preach or write any Thing to the Prejudice of the Church of England, would a private Doctor think it a Prefumption to withstand his Superiour, and write boldly against him ?

But let St Austin answer for me. St Peter (fays he) in whom the Primacy of the Apostles appear'd with so Surpaffing a Grace, was reprehended by a latter Apoftle. L. 2. de Bap. C. 1. And tho St Paul's Zeal is to be admired, St Peter's Humility in this Occafion is far more extoll'd by fome of the Fathers. St Gregory's Words are remarkable. He became (fays St Greg.)

the

the Follower of one less than himself, that even here he might go before him: to the End, that he, who was first in the highest Dignity of the Apostleship, might also be the first in humility. In Latin thus. Atque in eadem re factus eft fequens MINORÍS SUI, etiam ut in hoc prairet Quatenus qui PRIMUS erat in Apoftolarus culmine, effet &primus in Humilitate. Hom. 18. in Ezek. tom. za pag. 1180. This puts it beyond Difpute, what these two Fathers thought of St Peter's Supremacy, and makes it plain that a Superiour may be reprehended by an Inferiour without Prejudice to his Authority.

G. Methinks, My Lord, it did not become the « other Apofties to fend their Soveraign upon Bufi. « nefs, as they fent Peter to Samaria. A&t. 8. ¥. 14. « pág. 6. «

L. Indeed, Sr, your Stock of Arguments grows very low, when this muft ferye for one. Is it fuck an unusual Thing for the whole Body to depute their Superiour upon Bufinefs, wherein the common Caufe is concern'd? A Bishop may be deputed by his Diocefs, a Chancellor by the University, and even a Prince by the Senate. As the Jews fent their high Prieft If mael with other Emballadors to Nero. Jof. L. 20. Ant. C. 7.

G. If it be true, as fome fay, that St Peter was « Bishop of the Jewish Convert's at Rome, and St Paul « of the Gentiles there, St Paul would have had a « much greater Flock than St Peter, and the Succef- « fors of St Paul and not of St Peter, must have been « Bishops there; because the Church of Rome is now, « and has long been all of the Gentiles. pag. 7. «

L. All of the Gentiles, Sr? How do yow know that? But let that be as it will, tho the perfonal Application, or immediate Infpection of the two Apostles was perhaps divided, whilft they were together, their Jurifdiction was not: And it is nothing

E