unnecessary and I may very well wave it as undeserving any notice should be taken of it what I said was this That our Savior asked Peter thrice suitable to his trine denial as St. Austin observ'd Additur trinae negationi trina confessio whether he lov'd him c. This seems not at all amiss or obnoxious to any exception but you had a mind to carp at every thing Now tho' such parvitudes as these are not worth the defending yet because you Cavil at them I shall not desert them as undefensible for I believe I can produce better Authority to maintain them than you can to impugn them Ter me negasti timendo Ter me confitere amando Ambros Psal 90. Enarrat And in his Apol. David Cap. 9. Vt trinae lapsum negationis professio Charitatis toties repetita deleret St. Austin Serm. 50. Secund. Johan Vt trinâ confessione amoris deleret trinum peccatum negationis Theophyl on John 21. gives two Reasons of our Saviors asking thrice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both manifesting what a great care he took of the Faithful and withall by a trine Interrogation and Confession he cures his trine Negation The next that encounters my view is your Quotation out of St. Austin by which I perceive that the drift and scope of your design is to prove the words Pasce Oves meas to be spoken to the Rest as well as to Peter This is the White at which you level the words are these Cum illi dicitur ad omnes dicitur si amas me pasce c. This is all you quote but upon examining the place out of which these words were taken I find the foregoing words to be these Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae Claves Regni Caelorum datae sunt cum Petro datae sunt cum ei dicitur omnibus dicitur Pasce Oves meas August de Agone Christianâ Here you are to understand that in his Judgment Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholick Church and that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him namely as to its Head Primate and Rector as I have already prov'd out of his Writings In this only Sense I have already fully prov'd that those words which were originally and immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to the Rest they being all Epitomiz'd and compriz'd in him as their Chief In this Acceptation I grant that Pasce Oves meas might be spoken to all the Disciples and in no other aspect Now this do's not at all hinder but that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely and this is acknowledg'd by St. Austin himself in his Book de Pastoribus where speaking of our Savior Tunc ideo commendavit Oves quia invenit Petrum imo vero in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit multi erant Apostoli uni dicitur Pasce Oves meas And again in the same Book Petro dixerat Pasce Oves meas quid ergo faciemus Cum Petro commendantur Oves non ibi dixit Dominus Ego pascam Oves meas non tu sed Petre Amas me Pasce Oves meas And again Sic certe a Domino ad Beatum Petrum dicitur Petre Amas me ille tu scis Domine quia amo te Et cum tertio fuisset interrogatus trinâ responsione fuisset subsecutus repetitum est a Domino tertiò Pasce Oves meas Your following attempt is to prove those words to be spoken to all Pastors as well as to Peter by your Saying cited out of St. Basil Consequenter omnibus Pastoribus dictum est c. But this your Quotation do's you no Service at all it amounting to no more than what I frankly grant for I do as well as you believe the words to be consequently derivatively extensively spoken to every Pastor all being Figured and Represented in the Supreme Pastor St. Peter as Austin avouches in festo Petri Pauli In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorum sed bonorum Now the most inferior Pastor is as really one as a Bishop tho' his Sheep be not so numerous nor his Fold so large and I grant that these words were in a subordinate secondary Sense spoken not only to the other Apostles but to all lawful Pastors for Peter tho' he were the Chief was not the Sole Pastor Pastor bonus Christus quid Petrus Nonne Pastor bonus Quid Paulus quid caeteri Apostoli quid Beati Episcopi Martyres quid Sanctus Cyprianus nonne omnes Pastores boni non mercenarii as St. August affirms in his 50th Serm. Evang. Johan Neither did he feed the Flock alone but had the Apostles his Coadjutors and Compresbyters whom he exhorts to feed the Flock not the Universal but the Particular one Pascite gregem qui in vobis the Prerogative of feeding the Universal Church including both the Apostles and other Christians being delegated to Peter only as Supreme Pastor of the Church I therefore affirm that the words were principally immediately and initially spoken to him alone but I acknowledge likewise that in a Proportion'd Adequate Sense In quodam Modo they suit and quadrate with all true Pastors For as Salmeron affirms Quod summo Pastori dicitur id suo modo proportione servatâ aliis minoribus Pastoribus dictum est Because they who are called as Fellow-Labourers into part of the Pastoral Function and Solicitude are to exscribe and imitate the Form that Peter used in Feeding Loving Cherishing and Defending his Flock But I shall now come to your Quotation out of St. Basil which I found to be in his Book de Vita solit Cap. 23. and upon my examining it taking in those words which were Introductive to it I discover'd it to be the most destructive and fatal thing to your purpose that was imaginable the previous words which you suppress'd making wholly against you they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a Governor is nothing else but one that represents the person of our Savior and this we are taught by Christ constituting Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself for he says Peter do yon love me more than these Feed my Sheep Here St. Basil do's remarkably affirm what I go about to prove namely That Christ created Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself by vertue of these words But what shall I think of your concealing these Lines Certainly the Action was unworthy and disingenuous especially in you who pretend so much to Truth and Honest dealings and you could herein have no Reverence for the Author or Kindness for me whom by such deeds you cannot pretend to instruct but impose on I do not wonder to see the Fathers so copiously quoted by you now I see 't is your practice to Cull out here and there a Line without perpending its relation either to the foregoing or following Matter
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
same place he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The firm Rock of the building the Foundation of the House of God In his Ancorat he says thus of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was assisted by the Father in laying a firm Foundation of Faith And in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all respects Faith was establish'd and confirm'd in him St. Cyril who in his 4th Book de Trinit says Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa firma Discipuli fides c. Do's not take his Faith apart from his Person but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan In Petro tanquam in Petra Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan Nec Simon fore nomen sed Petrum dixit vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam And on the First of St. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon him he destin'd to build his Church My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point whom I find Lib. de Incarnat Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church his words are these Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt sed confessio vincit Infernum These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine he triumphantly cries out Audin ' Jesuita Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered For first no Catholick do's affirm the Church to be built on Peters Flesh so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas do's the Heavens by virtue of a strong robust Back and a pair of broad Shoulders neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul but on his Person consisting of Body and Soul Next I shall prove out of Ambrose that altho ' he calls Faith the Foundation he do's not deny Peters Person to be so likewise as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae And in Lib 4. Lucae Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet turbatur illa quae Judam habet quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est Et de Incarn Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris imo prae caeteris ideo fundamentum dicitur And Lib. 4. De fide Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit St. Basil tho' he is pleas'd to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 2d Isaiae The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock because it is firmly rooted in Faith Yet do's he not offer to depose his Person as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peters Person St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te And in the same place Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata De bono patientiae Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia 52. Epist Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat super quem posuit fundavit Ecclesiam De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit c. Epist 70. Baptisma unum Spiritus Sanctus unus una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis ratione fundata in the same Epistle Tertullian who in his Book de Pudicitia says concerning Peter In ipso Ecclesia extructa is pleas'd to explain himself thus id est per ipsum In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peters Faith but on his Person Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter hoc Petro conferre super te inquit edificabo Ecclesiam meam tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresie of Montanus And in his Prescriptions Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae Petra dicitur And again in Monog Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum Monogamum praesumo per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles whom to lessen and extenuate St. Peters Glory you would equalize with him that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foundations I concede to you Oecomenius on the Apocalyps gives the reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they laid the first ground-work of Faith in Christ And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae They in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World In relation to their Doctrin they were equally Orthodox and Infallible And what concern'd their Writings they being directed and influenc'd by the same Spirit they were alike Canonical and what appertain'd to the Government of all other Christians they were equally Pastors Heads and Rectors And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo as St. Hierom says on all of them Now notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promis'd to build his Church which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever but even of the Apostles themselves If they were Foundations so was St. Peter and the Prophets if they were Foundations they were Sub Petro post Petrum whom our Savior to preserve Unity chose out of the Apostolick Colledge and with his own Hands laid next to himself as Theophyl affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church will appear evident if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the other Apostles till they had learn'd it of him were ignorant of this I have already prov'd Now what our
the World The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter have the same Pastoral Authority devolv'd on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him as Supreme Bishop for the Government of the Church for eadem Antecessoris Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in after his Death passed to his Successor by him handed to the next from him transmitted to the following c. and so by a perpetual descendency embalm'd and convey'd to this present Bishop as being Ordinary successive and indefectible and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus to reckon Linus for the Second and the rest in their order to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate are Jure Successionis Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function as he was Pontifex Christianorum it being but rational that those Supreme Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter for the good of the Universal Church was inrob'd in should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty and for the prevention of Schism which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive Compulsory Power to quash it Thus in the Old Law there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests and Aaron who was the Head of the Levitical as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy was succeeded by Eleazer and he by Phineas c. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with died not with 'em but was propagated to the succeding High-Priests CHAP. II. Concerning Schism and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it THE next thing you observe and seem to mislike is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism I must confess I did decline handling it being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter and so I am still but because you urge and remind me and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it I shall now supply what I omitted then for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer to be unanswerable It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft or the Gracchi against Sedition You are pleas'd to call it Damnable Schism the Epithet was very proper and now look about you and strictly examine whether like David in his Parly with Nathan you have not through anothers side imprudently transfix'd your self by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemn'd in another I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation but all is but fucous and elusive your actual Separation having too much evidence to be deny'd and too much atrocity to be defended I shall now as summarily as I can contract what you write on this Subject and then shape my Reply to it Having defin'd Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governors the latter you term to be a Causless Division of one particular true Church from another then you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture then you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church and own the Four first General Councils and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism As for Fraternal you very fairly clear your Church of that because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World Having as you fancy acquitted your Church you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects First of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles and of the Antient Church such as are Image-worship Transubstantiation c. Then you say she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her denouncing all damn'd who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches c. These things prove the Church of Rome you say guilty of Schism in both acceptations This is a short abridgment of what you write about Schism which I design to answer as soon as I shall have premis'd something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin Schism do's essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christs Visible Church 't is a most heinous sin as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts its ruine in their Division 't is a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds as St. Chrysost affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the bold Souldiers dar'd not to do the Audacious Schismatick performs This sin is of that Malignancy that neither rectitude of Faith nor a Vertuous Life nor Good Works can attone nay Martyrdom it self according to St. Cyprian cannot expiate it Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur St. Chrysost says of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is worse August cont Parmen Lib. 2. says Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis The Devil seeing his Idols demolish'd and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity found out this Sin out of black Revenge Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit Schismata quibus fidem subverteret veritatem corrumperet scinderet unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit Eccles How lucky this Stratagem has been to him the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest I shall now examine whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it namely That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholick Church and this being an evident Matter of Fact it will be easie to determine which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church That the Church of England in the beginning of the
Reign of Henry the Eighth agreed with the Church of Rome and all other Churches in her Communion concerning Faith and Doctrine is undeniable That at his coming to the Crown there was an Actual Church Government settled by a long continuance in Antient Possession is undebatable That Protestants alter'd the then own'd Faith and brake the Bands of that Government is manifest to the World Both the Time when and Occasion why can be assign'd Moreover That the first Protestants were born of Catholick Parents and Originally in the Communion of the Catholick Church is unquestionable and that they as desirous of Innovation voluntarily departing from that Church renouncing those points which were Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government ipso facto became Schismaticks is easily prov'd for Schismaticos non fides diversa facit sed communionis disrupta societas says St. Hierom on Matt. 11. Now how Rome should be guilty of Schism which did never withdraw from any known Christian Society or depart from the Communion of any former Church with which before she held Communion I cannot possibly apprehend she continu'd fix'd where she was as the Pillar and Firmament of Truth All Hereticks and Schismaticks go out of her this going out is an antient note of Falshood Truth being elder than Error They went forth from us 1 John 2. 19. And certain that went from us Acts 15. 14. and accordingly St. Austin 3. tract Epist Johan says Omnes Haeretici omnes Schismatici ex nobis exierunt i. e. ex Ecclesia exeunt And de Symb. Lib. 1. Haereses omnes de Ecclesia exierunt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa ipsa autem manet in sua radice And in this Case the Rule of Optatus is very observable Videndum est quis in radice cum toto Orbe manserit quis for is exierit Lib. primo Now as for Luther and Calvin when they had voluntarily departed from the Roman Church they separated from all the Christian-Churches in the World and consequently from the Catholick Church for they did not adjoyn themselves in Communion of Sacraments to any Christian Church which was existent before their revolt from the Roman there being not one Church to be found upon Earth antecedent to their Apostacy to which they did apply themselves after their defection but they stood alone till they had acquir'd more Revolters out of the Roman Communion this is most clear and confess'd by themselves Luther in his Preface to King Henry says of himself Solus primo eram and Calvin to the same effect in his Epistle to Melancthon Absurdum est postquam discessionem a toto orbe facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab aliis dissilire So this New Church at the first was but one Person which by the accession of more Schismaticks grew numerous being protected by the Secular against the Spiritual Power But to prove your departure from the Roman Communion to be unvoluntary and consequently not Schismatical according to your definition of Schism you cite a saying which you say was King James's Non fugimus sed fugamur I must confess I never could be inform'd how the truth of these Words could be made out for Protestants before their Excommunication having made a wilful breach may be said to be Fugitivi rather than Fugati and accordingly their Expulsion may not so properly be term'd a driving them out of the Church as their Punishment for going out they having before deserted the Church of their own accord So she had too much reason to make use of her Spiritual Weapons for they by their Novel Doctrine and Schismatical Separation having first receded from her and by way of Anti-communion rais'd a new party of Pretended Reform'd Christians distinct from the general Body of the Catholick Church having instituted new Rites and moulded new Articles of Faith contrary not only to the Roman but to the Faith of all particular Churches then known immediately before they began their Separation and refusing to Communicate and joyn with her in Publick Liturgy and Participation of Sacraments disowning her Faith and Power to which they had submitted for above 900 Years and persisting obstinate in their Opinions and Separation the Church having with much patience attended their return and having try'd all Methods that might seem conducive to their amendment was enforc'd at last to proceed against them according to her Canons by a just Excommunication eliminating them from her Bosom for their Schism as St. Paul did the Infamous Corinthian for his Incest who by the heinous offence gave the first cause of his Excision So 't is manifest that the orignal departure was theirs and accordingly St. Hierom in his Comments Epistle to Titus avers Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo And Cyprian in his Fortieth Epistle Paenas quas meruerunt pependerent ut a nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent de Ecclesiâ se expellerent For the Church forsakes no Person neither doth she eject any but like a tender Mother cherishes her Children in her Vital and Fotive Breast unless such as wilfully separate themselves by their obstinate adhesion to Heretical Doctrines or by persevering in a Flagitious course of Life so as she is not now the hindrance of their Reunion so neither was she at first the occasion of their Separtion Protestants well knowing that their formal Schism can neither be deny'd nor maintain'd find themselves oblig'd to acknowledge the Matter of Fact but to blanch and candy their Crime pretend to have had a just Cause given them for their Separation and upon this supposition accuse the Church of Rome of causal Schism This is what I conceive Dr. Stillingfleet to mean when he says The Church of Rome imposing unlawful Conditions of Communion it was necessary not to Communicate with her Bishop Lawd is very clear herein The cause of Schism is yours says he for you thrust us from you because we call'd for Truth and Redress of Abuses As for Abuses if any were crept in they ought to have been redress'd and this is properly Reformation but to alter receiv'd Articles of Faith establish'd by Councils that is Heresie But I could not be satisfied what truth it was that the Bishop says they call'd for I am fully convinc'd that in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Reign our English Church did retain as a faithful depositary all those Sacred Truths which Gregory the Great convey'd unto us by St. Austin who I do fully believe did convert this Nation to the true Faith establishing his Doctrine with Miracles which Doctrine is still preserv'd unstain'd by the Catholicks of this Kingdom So I could not understand what the Bishop meant by calling for Truth neither could I tell when or by whom it was call'd for I must confess Henry the Eighth who open'd the Sluces to let in all the ensuing Mischief did call and that Vocally but not for Truth
His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow that was Carnal then he call'd for innocent Blood that was Tyrannical his other call was for Church-Goods and Lands that was a Sacrilegious call he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion neither alter'd he any thing of it but to gratifie his Lust and Covetousness Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit praeterquam libidinis luxuriae causâ as Sanders affirms of him And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholick Religion excepting the Title of Head of the Church Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth he had most reason to call for it being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresie contrary to his Fathers Will by the Sacrilegious Protector who did call indeed but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverish'd Church he likewise call'd for false Teachers to dilate the Gangren Martin Bucer a Dominican Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular Ochinus a Capuchin Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati from such we were not like to have Truth who not only fell from the Catholick Church but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency for which by the then establish'd Law they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth she being a Woman and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs and to tamper in Articles of Faith neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes who found the Schism begun and Religion alter'd to their Hands I know very well that in this case Truth is the Pretext but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary This is the usual Mask to hide the ugly Face of a foul Action which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be a plausible glittering Title a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprize but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examin'd we shall find that Revenge Haughtiness impure Flames and desire of Plunder were the Springs that mov'd the first Machin and nothing at all of Truth I do not find that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book he writ in defence of the Roman Church he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism and fell out with the Church rather for its Booty and Prey than for its Doctrine and this was Tyndals Sense of it in his Letter to Frith where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy saith thus Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken little for the Clergies profit in time to come but you must understand that it is not out of pure Heart and for love of Truth but to avenge himself and to eat the Whores Flesh and drink the Marrow of her Bones which because 't is somewhat enigmatically express'd Fox is pleas'd in the Margent thus to expound eating the Whores Flesh is to spoyl the Popes Church only for the Prey and Spoyl thereof not Religion Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein As for the suppression of Monasteries says he we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it Having premis'd thus much I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism even according to your own Distinction and Division of it You say she is not guilty of that Crime because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles Then because she pays Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Thirdly Because she owns the first four General Councils c. This you think enough to clear her of Schism whereas 't is nothing at all to the purpose being a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides the Cushion you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governours so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it You are accus'd by Catholicks of a voluntary departure out of the Catholick Church of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted renouncing his Authority look'd on as of Divine Institution this being your Accusation the Reasons alledg'd for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose Now tho' you come off with a scratch'd Face concerning your Paternal I must needs say you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended you extending your kindness to Lutheran Calvenist or Hugonot and indeed to any Church that will but joyn with you in separating from and defaming the Catholick The next thing I have to do is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism and the Method you take herein I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it For instead of proving Rome separating it self from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion which is properly Schism you accuse her of false Doctrine which Accusation could you be able to make good it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars by which you would prove your self not guilty of Schism The first is because you own and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoyns you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnick or how you can fancy to be united to him when you fall off from his Mystical Body the Church of which he is the Head I know not or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles when they recommend Tradition and you reject it when they tell you that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth and you make her Apostatical I could instance in many particulars how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to but I shall wave them and only tell you that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church yet this is your practice when you dispute with Catholicks but when you have to do with Sectaries who plead Scripture against you then you have recourse to Fathers and Tradition using the same Arguments against them as we do against you It was long ago observ'd by the Fathers That Hereticks were great pretenders to the Scriptures backing their false Opinions with it Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque
and reconcile Differences rather than by abusive Expressions and false Representations to exasperate and widen them Think how ingenuous it would be in you who are so influential and leading to the rest of your Flock candidly to acknowledge your Errors having been convinc'd of them disabuse them of their false pre-occupations rescue them from the Chains of their Erroneous Education dispose them to a right conception of Catholick Doctrine Shed no more Cockle amongst 'em as knowing your self responsible for the pernicious Principles you infuse into them Teach them sound Catholick Verities gratifie their distempered Stomachs with no more unwholsome viands humour their prurient itching Ears with no more empty gingling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deluding their dainty Ears with the Magick of the Tongue When you have exerted your best endeavours herein you may with some ground hope for Remission from Propitious Heaven otherwise you may justly fear that those Darts which you have thrown against the Catholick Church should beat back and reverberate upon your self for as St. Basil observes in his Hom. of Envy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those Darts which are flung with violence if they light on any firm and obdurate Matter recoil upon him that threw them But I shall now decline things of this nature and return you my Thanks for the long Bedroll of Authors which you have recommended to me Jewel is the First and indeed you did well to place him in the Front as being most bold and frontless after him comes Whitaker Abbot Hall White Laud Hammond c. these you desire me to peruse not questioning but by an impartial reading of them I may be reduc'd from the strangers Lap into the Bosom of my True Chast Mother I shall not go about to extenuate the Credit of these Men but shall pay a just Deference and Respect both to their Quality and Parts But I shall not so overvalue them as to grant them the Prelation to the Catholick Church Councils and Fathers nay I shall not equalize them with Cardinal Bellarmine Perròn Baronius or multitudes of others in the Roman Communion I will grant you that they have wrote as well as possibly could be in your behalf and had your Case been desensible they had maintain'd it but it was their misfortune to be engag'd in a wrong Quarrel which they presuming to be true have bent all their endeavours and distended every Nerve to support Error and obscure Truth 'T is pleasant to observe how these cunning Fencing-Masters shift their Weapons when they fight against Sectaries in defence of Episcopacy one would swear they were perfect Catholicks Brandishing Glittering Weapons drawn from the Armory of Antiquity Tradition Practice of the Church Councils and Fathers but when they grapple with Catholicks the Case is altered Then Scripture is the only Rule Councils may err and the Church Apostatize and the Fathers guilty of mistakes making use of all the shifting evading ways imaginable to avoid the dint of the Argument But as soon as I came to understand the vast difference amongst them in their Disputings with Catholicks I did conclude their Case very bad Whitaker in his Answer to Campians Reasons appeals to the first Six hundred Years after Christ which Jewel likewise did in his Ostentatious crack at St. Paul's Cross but Dr. Humphrey in the Life of him do's much reprehend him for his bold appealing to the Fathers as if he had thereby spoil'd himself and his Church in giving the Catholicks too large scope Bishop Laud being sensible of Jewels rashness lops off very fairly Two hundred Years contracting the time to a narrower compass to the Fathers of the first Four hundred Years as appears in his Forty eighth Sect. The Protestants offer says he to be try'd by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first Four hundred years and somewhat further Dr. Hammond who I conceive to be much more Learned than the two foregoing finding Bishop Laud's Four hundred Years not to hold Water abates One hundred of them in his Eighth Chapter of Schism For the particular Doctrins saith he wherein we are affirm'd by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrins and Traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first Three hundred Years or the Four General Councils This pruning of Antiquity and shrinking it from the Sixth to the Fourth and so to the Third Century seem'd to me the most foul and unreasonable thing imaginable for by this means most of the chief Fathers whose Works are most Copious were excluded from attesting the truth of the Churches Doctrin and very few admitted only those who had wrote little or nothing of our differences but some small Treatises Epistles and Apologies against Heathens and Exhortations to Martyrdom the Church being then under perpetual Persecutions But to answer you concerning your Catalogue of Authors I have perus'd those parts of their Works which relate to the Catholicks but they are so far from removing me out of the Strangers Lap that they have much contributed to my fixing my self there But pray what makes you call the Roman Church a Stranger don't you know that she is the Origin and Center of Unity and that all true Christians are oblig'd to Communicate with her Don't Irenaeus to whom I shall give more credit than to all your List of Authors affirm That all the Faithful are oblig'd to have recourse to this Church for its more powerful Principality Do's not St. Hierom say That he is profane who Eats the Lamb out of this House This is the place where God planted his only Altar and here is fix'd that Cathedra against which whoever erects another is as Optatus affirms Schismaticus peccator 'T is clear that St. Hierom tho' in reference to local distance he was much remote from Rome as he acknowledges in his Fifty seventh Epistle to Damasus Neque vero tanta vastitas elementi liquentis interjacens longitudo terrarum me à pretiosae margaritae potuit inquisitione prohibere yet notwithstanding this in the same Epistle he says Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior The same happy state I heartily wish you and all other Schismaticks well knowing how deplorable a thing it is to die out of that Communion I shall therefore conclude this Point with St Cyprian's Advice Ad Matrem revertimini unde prodistis The End of the First Part. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter 's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter WHAT I have hitherto wrote may resemble a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a light Skirmish it being but Prefatory and Introductive to that main design I am at which is the Vindication of St. Peter's Supremacy a Point of so high Import being the Common Center and Origin both of Catholick Unity of Sacerdotal Dignity and Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction but withal so strangely snarl'd
and it is granted you that he did so but then you are to look on him as a mixt Person in whom both the Sacerdotal and Regal Power were combin'd So what he did herein was not purely by virtue of his Kingly but Priestly Power This is clear out of St. Austin's Testimony in his Questions on Leviticus Lib. 3. Quest 23. Si Moises Sacerdos non fuit quomodo per illum omnia gerebantur si fuit quomodo summum Sacerdotium ab ejus fratre incipit which he thus solves Ambo erant summi Sacerdotes Aaron propter vestem Pontificalem Moses propter excellentius ministerium Thus likewise Philo in his Life of Moses gives this account of him in his Third Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the Life and Death of Moses who was both King Legislator High-Priest and Prophet And accordingly Greg. Nazianzen in his Sixth Oration calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prince of Princes and Priest of Priests Now the Secular and Ecclesiastick Power which was united in the Person of Moses was afterwards parted betwixt Eleazer and Joshua the one succeeding him in the Priestly and the other in the Princely Power as you may see in the 27th of Numbers where God commands Moses to give Joshua part of his Glory but in the same Chapt. you may see that he subjected Joshua to Eleazer at whose word both he and all the Children of Israel were to go in and out Your next Example is of Salomon whom I grant to have remov'd Abiathar from the Pontificate and to have subrogated Sadock in his place But first you are to understand that he was not depos'd for any matter of Faith or concerning Religion but for Treason and Rebellion For conspiring with Adonia whom he had Anointed King against Salomon Next you are to observe that Salomon exauctorated him not as King but as Prophet to whom God had committed some things after an extraordinary manner So what he acted herein was not by his own Royal Power but by Authority and Commission from God by Divine Inspiration as the Text evidences Vt impleretur Sermo Dei quem locutus est super domo Eli in Silo. This Action therefore of his do's not at all prove him to be superior to the High-Priest But only that God was pleas'd to make use of him as an Executer for the performance of a Sentence which he had formerly denounc'd And this will be easily understood if recourse be made to History Aaron had two Sons Eleazar and Ithamar Eleazar as eldest succeeded him in the Priesthood his Son Phinees succeeded him and his Posterity down to Heli continued in that Holy Function At which time the Posterity of Phinees incuriously administring the Priesthood God was pleas'd to punish their neglect by translating it from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar to wit to Heli in which Family it continued about 120 Years to Salomons days who depos'd Abiathar the Abnepos of Heli for conspiring with his Corrival Adonias substituting Sadock in his place Now as the Pontificate was remov'd by God's order from the Family of the eldest Brother to that of the younger House so was it likewise transplanted from thence into the right Line by the Authority of the same God who was pleas'd in several things to order and direct those Kings of Israel governing as it were by them This made Josephus to affirm in his Second Book against Appio That God did not so much institute in Israel a Monarchy as a Theocracy or Deiarchy But now if this Action of Salomon's deposing Adonias be construed in favor of the Prince as if he thereby were Superior to the High-Priest The Clergy has as strong an Argument for their Superiority in Samuel's declaring King Saul dethron'd but I look on both these Examples as extraordinary and consequently not Presidential The next Example is David but he being likewise King and Prophet what can be alledg'd concerning him is answered in what is said of Salomon it is moreover mention'd of him that what he did in Church Matters was Juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege Domini As for the Example of Ezechias tho' it be granted he constituted Levites in the House of God yet in the Second Book Paralip Cap. 29. you may perceive that what he did herein was Secundum dispositionem David Gad videntis Nathan Prophetae Siquidem Domini praeceptum fuit per manum Prophetarum ejus And herein you will likewise find that he was much ruled by Isaias as in Eccles 48. 25. Fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo fortiter ivit in via David Patris sui quam mandavit illi Isaias Thus you may perceive that the Examples of these Kings are not at all apposit to your Point they not proving that Princes by their sole Royal Power may intermeddle in Church Affairs or reform Religion in its Substance enacting things by their own Authority contrary to the Assent of Gods High-Priest and Prophets Some Kings by extraordinary Command as Kings and Prophets did concern themselves in Church Affairs Others not without consent and assistance of the Priests did very laudably use their utmost power to destroy Idolatry and restore Discipline but which of them disown'd the Authority of the High-Priest abrogated his-Power and invested himself with it Now that the Kings of Israel were not Supreme in Church Matters seems evident by the word of God spoken to the High-Priest Eliakim in Isaias 22. where after he had promis'd to give him the Key of David he explains to him the Power of it Et aperiet non erit qui claudat claudet non erit qui aperiat by which he plainly makes him Supreme in Church Affairs no Person whatsoever being able to exclude whom he opened to Or to introduce whom he shut out And to Sinew this Argument with a stronger Nerve you will find that Jehosophat who was a Religious Prince would not handle Church Affairs knowing that they belong'd to the High-Priest as in Paralip 2. 19. Ananias autem Sacerdos Pontifex vester in his quae ad Deum pertinent praesidebit And on the contrary Osias who presum'd to usurp the Sacerdotal Function and offer Incense to God was by the incensed Deity struck with Leprosy By what I have mention'd it will clearly appear how irrational it is for you to produce the Jewish Kings as Examples to justifie your former Kings exorbitant tampering in Church Affairs there being no Parallel at all betwixt them They acting therein as Kings and Prophets Authoriz'd by Gods extraordinary Commission and in their Reformations joining with the High-Priest whereas yours was in opposition to him and warranted by nothing but Secular Might But now after all this if you could clearly prove that the Jewish Kings were superior to the High-Priest and Supreme Quatenùs Kings in Church Affairs it would not follow that that similitude should hold good amongst Christians The Priesthood in
tuum Here St. Austin explains what he meant by his Distinction what you design'd by it to me is wrapt up in Clouds unless you fancy that our Savior delivering his Sheep into the Hands of Peter lost his propriety in them But I fancy Christ no more lost his Claim and Interest in his Sheep when he recommended them to Peters Government than a King loses his Royalty and Jurisdiction in those Subjects over whom he constitutes a Viceroy For neither Peter nor any of the Apostles set up for themselves Neither did they lay any other Foundation but Christ and their united endeavours were to make Men Christanos not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius calls them You may then now understand Peters Jurisdiction to be derivative from and subordinate to our Savior and tho' in respect to the other Apostles and Christians whatsoever he was chief Pastor yet in relation to Christ who is the only Supreme Independent Pastor he is but a Sheep yet the Noblest most Honourable and Excellent of the Flock as St. Chrysost says in Apost 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such a Sheep he is govern'd and fed by Christ This St. Austin Serm. 62. Johan 2. affirms Commendabat Christus Petro agnos suos pascendos qui pascebat Petrum Yet it do's not at all follow but that Peter after Christ's relinquishing this World was the Pastor of all Christ's Sheep but by Authority from him and as dependant of him and herein you may see St. Austin's Judgment in his Book de Pastoribus Nam ipsum Petrum cui commendabat Oves suas quasi alter alteri unum secum facere volebat ut sic ei Oves commendaret ut sit ille Caput ille figuram Corporis portaret id est Ecclesiae And again in the same Book Non ibi dixit Dominus Ego pascam Oves meas non tu sed Petre amas me Pasce Oves meas Here Christ is said not to feed his Flock that is visibly but Peter Your other Criticism is that Christ said Pasce Oves not Pastores but the difficulty of this Distinction may be remov'd with great facility for 't is very easie to explain how Pastors may be fed even to the lowest Capacity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that it may be more intelligible I will make it out to you by this Simile You who are a Minister of such a Parish in relation to your Flock and Parishioners are a Pastor and they are your Sheep receiving from you Spiritual Food and Pasture But you on the other side this Janus having a bifront aspect in relation to your Bishop are a Sheep and he has Power to exercise his Pastoral Government over you when he sees occasion And to rise to an higher Ela a Bishop Archbishop or Primate are Pastors in consideration of those Sheep which are in subjection to them but being ballanc'd with a Patriarch they are Sheep themselves Thus it was with the Apostles they in reflection to the whole Christian World were Pastors Governors and Princes but in comparison with Peter the Head of the Apostolick Senate and Supreme Pastor immediately next to Christ they were Sheep And to this intent our Savior seem'd to have chang'd the words in his Commission to Peter as St. Ambrose observes in his Lib. 10. Cap. 24. in Luc. Denique tertiò Dominus non jam diligis me sed amas me interrogat Et jam non agnos ut primò quodam lacte pascendos nec oviculas ut Secundò sed Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret And the same Author in another place says thus Petro committi incipientes proficientes perfectos Hence Euseb Emissenus Serm. De Nat. St. Johan says Non solùm Pastorem sed Pastorum Pastorem eum constituit And Arnobius on Psal 138. calls him a Bishop of Bishops which is equipollent to a Pastor Pastorum Ecce Apostolo paenitenti succurritur qui est Episcopus Episcoporum The next thing I am to regard is your Asterisk and Note on Confirma Fratres that it was not said Confirma Filios or Servos or Subditos but Fratres I have no design to endeavour to alter the least tittle of the Text but shall liberally grant you your Observation And now what will you inferr out of it that they were therefore equal because they were call'd Fratres This surely must be the design of your Criticism but I deny the Consequence for you will find our Savior to call his Disciples Fratres as Matt. 20. 10. Nuntiate Fratribus ut eant in Galilaeam and speaking to Mary Magdalen he says Vade ad Fratres meos c. I hope you will not conclude the Apostles equal with him upon this account St. Paul in like manner calls the Corinthians Fratres in his Epistle to them Et ego Fratres non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus Hoc itaque dico Fratres But notwithstanding this Appellation he had Spiritual Jurisdiction over them and exercis'd it too as appears by delivering one of them over to Hell's Jailor And in Cor. 4. he says Quid vultis in virgâ veniam vobis an in Charitate This Virga was a Symbol of Power Oecomenius on the words Viri Fratres in the 2. Acts Apost gives this account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not say Fratres by way of Equality as if by such a term they had equaliz'd themselves to them but to shew how familiar they were with them Now the reason why Christ spake to Peter to strengthen his Brethren was according to Theophyl because he look'd on him as their Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyril accordingly on the same words Postquam me negato ploraveris corrobora Fratres cum te Principem Apostolorum deputavero St. Ambrose do's clearly confess that by vertue of these words spoken to him Christ made him their Supreme Pastor in Psa 43. Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus a Diabolo est ideoque ante significat Dominus quid sit illud quod postea eum elegit gregis Dominici Pastorem nam huic dixit confirma Fratres tuos Having thus remov'd these your slender Objections with as much ease as the Wind puffed away the aged Sybils disordered Leafs I shall now hasten to conclude what I have to say more on this Subject and to shew you how fair an Antagonist you have of me If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep I will exempt them from Peter's Prefecture This seems to me an equitable proposal Now if they were his Sheep they were under the denomination of Oves meas recommended to Peter's Shepherdly Government Now that which enforces me to believe that they were comprehended under those words and that Christ meant them when he said so is because he often calls them Sheep I 'll strike the Shepherd and the Sheep shall be scattered My Sheep hear my Voice Behold I send you as Sheep And accordingly in the 10th