A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

3. Were it never so true, as it is notoriously false, yet it would not one jot promote your design: It is about Peter the Apostle, and not the Pope of Rome, that we are yet discoursing. Do you think a man can easily commence per saltum, from the imaginary Principality of Peter unto the Infallibility of the present Pope of Rome? Quid Pape cum Petro? what relation is there between the one and other? Suppose a man have so good a mind unto your company, as to be willing to set out with you in this ominous stumbling at the threshold, what will you next lead him unto? You say.

II. That St Peter besides his Apostolical Power and Office, (wherein setting aside the prerogative of his Princedom before mentioned, the rest of the Apostles were partakers with him,) had also an Ecumenical Episcopal Power invested in him, which was to be transmitted unto others after him. His Office purely Apostolical, you have no mind to lay claim unto. It may be, you despair of being able to prove, that your Pope is immediately called and sent by Christ: ⟨p. 167⟩that he is furnished with a power of working Miracles, and such other things as concurred to the constitution of the Office Apostolical: and perhaps himself hath but little mind to be exercised in the discharge of that Office, by travelling up and down, poor, despised, persecuted, to preach the Gospel: Monarchy, Rule, Supremacy, Authority, Jurisdiction, Infallibility, are words that better please him: And therefore have you mounted this Notion of Peters Episcopacy, whereunto you would have us think that all the fine things you so love and dote upon, are annexed. Poor, labouring, perfected Peter the Apostle, may die and be forgotten: but Peter the Bishop, harnessed with Power, Principality, Sovereignty, and Vicarship of Christ,. This is the man you enquire after: But you will have very hard work to find him in the Scripture, or Antiquity, yea the least footstep of him. And do you think indeed that this Episcopacy of Peter, distinct from his Apostleship, is a meet stone to be laid in the foundation of faith? It is a thing that plainly overthrows his Apostleship; For if he were a Bishop, properly and distinctly, he was no Apostle: If an Apostle, not such a Bishop: That is, if his Care were confined unto any one Church, and his residence required therein, as the Case is with a proper Bishop, how could the Care of all the Churches be upon him? How could he be obliged to pass up and down the world in pursuit of his Commission of preaching the Gospel unto all Nations? or to travail up and down as the necessity of the Churches did require? But you will say, that he was not Bishop of this or that particular, but of the Church Universal. But I supposed you had thought him Bishop of the Church of Rome, and that you will plead him afterwards so to have been: