we have reason to expect something to the purpose His Design here is to shew S. Peter's Preeminence as he is the Foundation of the Church above the other Apostles And yet 1. He grants that all the Apostles in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World in Relation to their Doctrine were equally Orthodox and Infallible As to what concerned their Writings they were alike Canonical and what appertained to the Government of all other Christians they were equally PASTORS HEADS and RECTORS * Pag. 118. This is a large Concession if in what appertained to the Government of all other Christians they were EQVALLY PASTORS HEADS RECTORS then one would think Peter had not a more universal Pastorship than they But we Hereticks are it seems mistaken For notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. PETER was here the only sole Rock on which Ibid. Christ promised to build his Church the only and the sole Rock too But in case he were here the sole Rock if elsewhere the other Apostles are Rocks too what Preeminence doth this give him above them But perhaps he did not intend to lay any Stress upon the word here Well then they were equally Foundations but St. Peter was the only Rock that is to say every one of them was a Rock as much as he and yet none of them was a Rock but he Not so for they were equally Foundations in respect of all other Christians whereas Peter was the sole Rock of the Church Were not then all other Christians the Church not the whole but only part of it for the Church did consist NOT ONLY OF ALL CHRISTIANS WHATSOEVER BVT EVEN OF THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES Then the Apostles it seems were no Christians since besides all Christians whatsoever the Church consisted of the Apostles too that is it consisted of such as were Christians and such as were no Christians It will be said by all Christians whatsoever he means no more than all other Christians whatsoever besides the Apostles Be it so the Apostles then were built upon Peter but all other Christians upon Peter and the rest of the Apostles jointly But how could the Apostles be built upon Peter seeing they were built were both Disciples of Christ and Apostles before this Promise was made to Peter whereas nothing was built on him but what was to be built after it He adds If they viz. the Apostles were Foundations they were sub Petro et post Petrum If they were Foundations sub Petro then Peter was built upon them let it be therefore post Petrum whom our Saviour to preserve Vnity chose out of the Apostolick College and with his own Hands laid NEXT TO HIMSELF †Pag. 118 Christ then as the Foundation of all even of Peter too is laid first Peter is laid next to Christ the other Apostles are laid upon Peter and one upon another in their respective order let us suppose in the order in which they are mentioned by St. Matthew Andrew is laid next to Peter James next to Andrew John next to James Now in this order as Peter is the Foundation of the other eleven Apostles so Andrew is the Foundation of ten which are laid upon him James is the Foundation of nine and so at last Peter's being the sole Rock upon which the Church was built amounts to no more than this that one Stone more was laid upon Peter than upon Andrew and two more upon Peter than upon James Again If the meaning of the Churches being built on Peter and his Successors is that he and they are supreme Heads of the Church ‖ Pag. 131. Then the universal Church all save Peter being built upon Andrew Andrew was supreme Head of all save Peter himself And all except Peter and Andrew being built upon James James was supreme Head of all except Peter and Andrew c. And so the Church had as many supreme Heads as there were Apostles And is this at length all that Excellency of Power they ascribe to St. Peter The Reasons he gives why Christ made Peter the only Rock are 1. Because he did HERE engage himself by Promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the Apostles till they had learnt it of him were ignorant of The Foundations of which reason have been already razed 2. That what our Saviour repli'd to his Confession to pass over those Elegancies vicissim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was reciprocally directed to him only the Pronouns Tu and Tibi excluding Plurality and Partnership not only as an Approbation but as a Reward From the Pronowns Tu and Tibi no more can be inferred than that he in particular was entituled to these Promises not that the other Apostles were excluded nor is there one word to exclude them in those sayings of St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril he afterward quotes to this Purpose It is one thing to say Christ here promised Peter only to build his Church upon him another thing to say Christ here promised Peter that he would build his Church on him only and no other Though the Promise was here directed to Peter only yet nothing is more manifest than that what is here promised was afterward conferr'd upon the other Apostles Instances of a like nature frequently occur in the Holy Scripture But what if this Gentleman presently contradicts himself and yields that Peter is not the only Rock This he certainly does if he grants there are other Rocks beside him and he must of necessity grant this when he says God did destine him to be in a more peculiar excelling manner the THE ROCK on whom he would build his Church * Pag. 121. For could he be the Rock in a more excelling manner unless there were other Rocks whom he excelled Thus after his bold Advance he cowardly retreats The sole Rock is now put the more excelling Rock Christ promised to build his Church not on him only but on him more eminently or on him in a more signal and remarkable manner as he also expresses it †Pag. 119 123. And in this Dr. Tho. G. concurs with the Discussor For having before given St. Jerom's Paraphrase upon the Words he adds By which it appears that our Saviour when he gave to SIMON the Name of PETER that is a ROCK made him the Rock on which he would build his Church and that in a more eminent manner than any other of the Apostles ‖ Sermon of St. Peter p. 23. By the way if he made him the Rock when he gave him the Name of Peter then he made him so before and by consequence not at the same time when he said to him Thou art Peter c. as the Doctor affirms in the Page immediately foregoing for it is certain he gave him that Name before Mark 3. 16. John 1. 42. But let us see what their
15. Since 't is certain it is as easy from this word to demonstrate that it is given to every Bishop Now though it is granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule as well as to feed yet I deny the reason he gives for it viz. To this very intent our Saviour changed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies not all the Functions of Pastoral Authority but only what appertain to feed for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both to feed and to rule ‖ Pag. 178. For how does it appear that this was our Saviour's intention in changing the word Why this was observed by Erasmus in his Notes upon this Place Will he then stand to whatsoever Erasmus hath observed in his Notes upon the Scripture If so he must renounce several Articles of his new Roman Faith. But the truth is Erasmus hath no such observation he says indeed that our Saviour twice said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feed or nourish once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rule as a Shepherd rules his Flock but he does not say that to this intention he changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far was he from this that when he presently reckons up the several ways by which the Sheep are to be fed he doth not so much as mention this of ruling or governing To let him see of what force his Reason is suppose a Man should say that our Saviour by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant no more than to feed might he not with as much reason say that to this intent he changed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as he first changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he again changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being used both in the first and third and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second Interrogation Before the next Edition of his Book I would advise him to add to the five Tribes five more for by all the Accounts I have ever before met with the number of the Tribes of Israel was ten And that not five only but all of them came to Hebron and spake the words he mentions to David he may find 2 Sam. 5. 1 2 3. 1 Chron. 11. 1 2 3. And if he please to consult 1 Chron. 12. from ver 23. to the end he may find how many of each Tribe were then present 2. He denies That the other Apostles had Commission to feed and rule the whole Flock as much as Peter * Pag. 179. For though he grants that the other Apostles had most full and ample Power to found Churches every where to convert baptize and preach to every Creature yet notwithstanding all this they did not equalize Peter For he by Virtue of these our Saviour's Words was created not only chief Pastor of all other Christians but even of the Apostles themselves Which because he here only asserts but afterward pretends largely to prove I shall therefore remit the Consideration of it to another place 3. He next contends that these Words feed my Sheep contain à Commission in Opposition to Dr. Hammond Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Barrow who affirm them to be an Exhortation Dr. Hammond he tells us says of this Text All that can by any Torture be extracted from it is an Exhortation to a diligent Discharge of that Office to which he was before commissioned †Pag. 180. And is that all does he give no reason for what he says But it is easier to repeat an Assertion than to answer the Arguments by which it is confirm'd But see how the Discussor proves it to be a Commission The Words says he being pronounced by a Lord to his Servant imperatively have no Lineaments of an Exhortation but of a Commission ‖ Ibid. Is then every Command of a Lord to his Servant a Commission A Commission I thought had ever conveyed some Power which the Person had not before he received that Commission But a Lord may I hope command his Servant to do that which he had before impower'd him to do If this be all required to a Commission most of St. Peter's Exhortations are Commissions for as they are expressed in the Imperative Form so if the Romanists say true he was so great a Lord that not only those to whom he directed his Epistles but the Apostles themselves were his Servants But I need not insist upon this since Dr. Hammond himself hath so fully answered it His fourth Argument saith the Doctor is that Pasce being expressed imperatively and spoken by a Lord to his Servant ought in all reason to signify a Command since then every Command of a lawful Superior gives a Commission to do that which he commands and the Words expressing this Command are in a particular manner spoken to Peter it follows that St. Peter had by them a particular Commission given him to feed Christ's Flock To which the Doctor answers by denying that every Command of a lawful Superior gives a Commission for it is says he evident lawful Superiors may command to exercise their Commission after it is given Is not this visible in the Field every Day The General gives his Commission first for the raising of an Army then in any particular Expedition he gives out Commands an hundred perhaps in a Day and is there any Colour of Probability for each of these Commands that it should be the giving a Commission If there be it must be founded in the Equivocalness of the word Commission so as not only the Conveying the Power and Authority or Office shall be meant by it which is the ordinary Notion but the giving out any Order * Dispatche◠dispatch'd c. 7. Sect. 2. Thus the Doctor I commend this Gentleman's Discretion that he passed it over I fear he will be hard put to it to shew what Power was here given to Peter above what he had before for he was before impower'd to feed Christ's Sheep Yea I have already proved not only by the Testimonies of the Fathers but of Bellarmine and Maldonat that no greater Power could be contained in these Words Feed my Sheep than was before conveyed to him and the rest of the Apostles by those other Words As my Father sent me so send I you c. The necessary Consequence of which is that they could not contain a Commission properly so call'd However if every Command of a Master to a Servant to do his Duty must be a Commission I then grant that this is so But he finds the Fathers looking upon these Words as a Command Commission Injunction he still confounds Command and Commission as a great Trust committed to him No greater than what they believed was before committed to him But St. Bernard calls it in plain Terms a Commission I might tell him that St. Bernard uses the Word in a loose improper Sense but I need not
spared all the places he quotes from St. Austin for the proof of it The previous words in St. Basil he would perswade us make wholly against that for which they are by Protestants alledg'd I shall therefore set them down together with those that follow and then leave it to the impartial Reader to judg They are by himself thus rendred in English For a Governour is nothing else but one that represents the Person of our Saviour and this we are taught by Christ constituting Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself for he says Peter do you love me more than these Feed my Sheep * In the Original 't is constituting Peter Pastor after himself not the Pastor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is there here that is so destructive and fatal to our purpose Does this set Peter above the rest of the Apostles Had not Christ before created every one of them Pastor of his Church after himself But see now what follows And giving henceforth to all Pastors and Teachers an equal Power and of this it is a Sign that they all bind and loose as he †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas Constitut Monast c. 22. He said in the words foregoing that he constituted Peter after himself Pastor of the Church he says in these that he conferred to all Pastors and Teachers not a Power subordinate but equal to that he gave to Peter Whereof this is a sign that they do all bind and loose not in subjection to him but in like manner as he See now what credit is to be given to this Man who can have the face to pervert so plain a Testimony as this That Christ spake these words Feed my Sheep to Peter only is not denied by Protestants and therefore all his Fathers and all his Arguments from the Context to prove it are needless ‖ Pag. 188 189 190. But it is his way to be copious in the proof of that which is granted and to say little or nothing to the purpose where there is most need of proof But though they were for a special reason directed to him only yet all the rest were equally concerned in them SECT II. In all that confused heap we have in the Remainder of these two Chapters there is nothing needs an Answer but that alone which is the main thing in Debate viz. That Peter as supreme Pastor had Authority of feeding the universal Church including both the Apostles and other Christians * Pag. 187 194. This he attempts to prove by two Arguments from the Text it self which he pretends are agreeable to the sense of the Fathers The first from the Question Lovest thou me more than these The second from the Injunction Feed MY SHEEP The Vanity of his Attempt will soon appear 1. If Christ says he had designed him to be no more a Pastor than any of the rest the Question had been more rationally stated thus Simon Jona do you love me AS MVCH as any of the other do but our Savior asking him whether he loved him more than the rest did by the Shape and Frame of the Question intend him a particular Superiority above the rest †Pag. 190 191. To the same purpose Dr. Tho. G. says to take away all Suspicion as if he meant not to give him an Authority above that of the rest of his Brethren he asked him not only if he loved him but if he did not love him MORE THAN THEY manifestly declaring by the Excess of Love he required from him a proportionable EXCESS or Superiority in the Power that he committed to him ‖ Pag. 30. This adds the Discussor seems to me most serenely to be the native and genuine meaning of of our Saviour's Question disarray'd of all Heretical Depravation rarely elegant otherwise I desire to know to what Purpose and Designment was the Interrogation of a greater Degree of Love. I will be so kind as to tell him most serenely what is the native and genuine Reason of this The Interrogation is of a greater degree of Love with respect to that Profession Peter had formerly made tho all should be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended * Matth. 26. 33. Where Peter having professed a Love to Christ above all the rest and yet when he was put upon the Trial having failed more than any of them by thrice denying him our Saviour therefore puts the Question comparatively Lovest thou me more than these Art thou still as confident as thou wast heretofore that thou hast a greater Love for me than these have To which he now returns a more modest Answer professing only the Sincerity of his Love but making no Comparison with others Lord thou knowest I love thee As much as to say I have now learnt by sad Experience not to prefer my self before others I will not therefore say that I love thee more than any of my fellow-Disciples but I dare appeal to thy self who knowest the Heart for the Truth of my Love thou Lord that knowest all things knowest that I love thee And therefore that Peter loved Christ more than any of the other Apostles though it were certain that he did so cannot be concluded from this Question much less that this his egregious Love was the Motive that induc'd Christ to grant him this Commission as the Discussor words it and less yet that Christ by commanding him to feed his Sheep did declare him to be the greatest Lover Nor can it hence be inferr'd as Dr. Tho. G. would have it that Christ required an Excess of Love from him The feeding of his Sheep being enjoyn'd as an Expression of his Love only and not of his greater Love. If thou lovest me as thou professest give proof of thy Love to me by feeding my Sheep There is therefore no need to determine whether Peter's Love surpassed that of all the other Apostles since all that is here upon the Profession of his Love required of him or if the Discussor will have it so the Commission here given him does no way exceed that given to the other Apostles so that supposing him never such a raging ardent mad Lover of Christ as the Discussor very handsomly renders St. Chrysostom's words and that this Love was the Ground of the Trust here committed to him it cannot hence with any colour of Reason be inferr'd that he was advanc'd to any the least Superiority over them And therefore all the Quotations of the Fathers to prove either of these are lost Labour and I may pass over the two next Pages as impertinent except one Passage which deserves an Asterisk had we not met with something like it before That according to the Proportion and Measure of his Love was the Extension and Latitude of his Power †Pag. 192. If the Pope's Power have the same measure to what a narrow Compass will it be reduc'd For if we may judge their Love by what their own Writers tell
A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy PART I. In Answer to a Treatise intituled St. Peter's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers And to a Sermon of S. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager on St. Peter and St. Paul's Day by Thomas Godden D. D. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Discourse of the Pope's Supremacy H. Maurice Rmo. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Junii 7. 1688. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the 〈◊〉 and Crown in St. Paul 's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy THOUGH the Pope's universal Pastorship is a Claim so groundless and the Vanity of it hath been so exposed not only by Protestants but by some learned Men of the Church of Rome that he had need have a Roman Confidence who shall now think to impose upon us by a pretence so miserably baffled yet because it is by many still insisted upon with as much Assurance as if nothing had been said in Confutation of it it may not be amiss to enquire whether any thing new hath been produc'd in defence of this good old Cause of the Church of Rome by her late Advocates * Nubes Testium St. Peter 's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers A Sermon of St. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager by Thomas Godden D. D. The Pope's Supremacy asserted from the Considerations of some Protestants and the Practice of the Primitive Church in a Dialogue between a Church-Divine and a Seeker in Vidication of Nubes Testium The first of those Discourses quoted in the Margin hath already received an Answer and I think it needless to repeat what hath been said by the learned Author of it The other three I intend to examine the two former of them joyntly because there is no Argument offer'd in the Sermon that we do not also meet with in the Treaties of St. Peter's Supremacy the third which is a Reply to the Answer to the Nubes Testium shall be consider'd distinctly and apart The Discourse of St. Peter's Supremacy was written as the Author informs us in Confutation of some Advertisement to the Reader Papers he received from a Protestant Divine having never seen those Papers and having great reason upon many accounts to suspect that what he quotes from them is not fairly represented I shall take no notice of them but whatsoever I find in his Book that is pertinent to the main Question and hath but the shew of Argument shall be duly consider'd What he hath offer'd is he tells us as well perform'd as his Abilities would permit and his Abilities we may presume were none of the meanest after he had given the Fathers a due Discussion and applied himself to the modern Authors of both sides that he himself had no low opinion of his Performance we may reasonably conclude in that he thought it worthy the Approbation and Protection of her Majesty the Queen Regent I therefore expected great matters beyond what I had formerly met with but no sooner had I read a few pages but my Expectation flagg'd and upon the Perusal of the whole Book I scarce ever found my self more disappointed The first Part is wholly spent upon other Points excepting part of chap. 1. concerning St. Peter's Successor it being as he himself tells us but Prefatory and introductive to the main Design he aim'd at which Part. 2. chap. 1. in the second Part he applies himself to and his whole Discourse in the second and third Parts may be reduc'd to these two general Heads I. St. Peter's Supreme Authority over the Universal Church II. That the Bishop of Rome succeeded him in this Supremacy CHAP. I. I. THAT St. Peter was invested with supream Authority over the Universal Church This is the Supremacy he means a Primacy of Order is not denied by Protestants but that will not satisfy the Pope and 〈◊〉 Friends that which they contend for is a Supremaâ—◠〈◊〉 Power over all Christians not excepting the 〈◊〉 themselves Now that St. Peter had this Supremacâ— he attempts to prove by several Texts of Holy Scripture and by the Testimonies of several Fathers which he quotes as he goes along to confirm the Sense he gives of those Scriptures The Scriptures he produces he was put to no pains to search for they being no other than those common Texts which have I think been pressed upon the same Service by every Romanist that hath ever written upon this Subject viz. Matth. 16. v. 17 18 19. John. 21. 16. In the first he supposes that Christ promised this Supremacy in the second that he conferr'd it SECT I. I begin with the first whence he argues as his Predecessors in this Controversy have ever done from the double Promise Christ made to St. Peter The one in these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the other in these And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. But before he proceeds to discourse of these there are two things he supposes as the reason and Foundation of this special Honour conferr'd on St. Peter †Part 2. c. 1 2 3. First That at the time when he made this Confession he alone knew the Divinity of Christ the rest of the Apostles being as yet ignorant of this great Mystery Secondly That he knew this by a special Revelation from God the Father I shall therefore first examine his Foundation because if that fail the Supremacy built thereon will of it self fall to the Ground It hath not without Reason been questioned by some whether by the Son of the living God St. Peter meant any more than he did by the Christ not only because the former Expression is in other Texts of Scripture expounded by the latter but because St. Mark speaking of this very Confession of St. Peter makes it no more than this Thou art the Christ ‖ Mark 8. 29. And St. Luke that he was the Christ of God * Luke 9. 20. Yea the Discussor himself supposes that Peter confessed no more than what Christ afterward strictly commanded his Disciples to conceal as too sublime to be divulged †Pag. 79. And that we find ver 20. was no more than this That he was Jesus the Christ And if St. Peter's Confession amounted to no more it cannot then be denied but that St. Andrew long before him confessed as much when he said We have found the Messiah ‖ John 1. 49. And that Nathanael's Confession was no way inferiour when he said Thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel * John 1. 49. But be it granted that St. Peter by the Son of the living God meant that he was the Son of God by Nature as the Fathers generally expound it yet that the other Apostles were not at this time ignorant of this
Heaven be common to the rest why shall not likewise all those things be common to all both which are spoken before and which follow after as spoken to PETER ‖ Tract 1. in Matth. 16. Of the same Judgment must all those Fathers before-mention'd be who were of Opinion that the other Apostles had the same Faith and would have made the same Confession had not Peter prevented them For since they knew that this Article of our Faith could not be known but by Divine Revelation they must of Necessity hold that all they that knew it had such a Revelation of it To which I may also add All those who affirm that the Promise of the Keys was made not only to Peter but to all the Apostles which as I shall afterward shew was the general Opinion of the Fathers I might here fairly dismiss the Discussor for his Foundation failing whatsoever is built upon it must of it self tumble down And were indeed both his Suppositions true Were it true that the other Apostles were ignorant of Christ's Divinity and that Peter attained to the knowledg of it by a particular Revelation yet he must be a Man of rare Art who can superstruct his Supremacy upon such a bottom For what connection is there between these two Propositions Peter first knew the Divinity of Christ by special Revelation therefore Peter hath supreme Jurisdiction over the Universal Church Is not this Consequence altogether as good Andrew knew him to be the Messiah before Peter therefore Andrew was Peter's Superior And this is somewhat better St. John lay in Christ's Bosom or had the uppermost place next after Christ at Meals therefore St. John is the Prince of the Apostles Are not these admirable Consequences And yet I fear we shall find no better proofs for Peter's Supremacy But because some perhaps may say It is not much material whether these Hypotheses stand or fall since the direct Proofs he afterwards produces both from Scripture and the Antients are a Foundation that can never be shaken I shall proceed to examine the remainder of his Discourse though not in his preposterous Method It is an absurd thing to talk of the Pope's Supremacy as St. Peter's Heir unless St. Peter's Supremacy be first made out I shall therefore begin with that and in case it appear that St. Peter was invested with this paramount Power it will then be fit to enquire whether it descended to the Bishop of Rome as his Heir The Proofs he produces of St. Peter's Supremacy are as I said before no other than those two Texts of Scripture commonly press'd by the Romanists to serve in this cause and the Sayings of some Fathers to confirm the sense he gives of these Texts In the first of these viz. Matth. 16. 18 19. he fancies he is furnished with a double Argument one from these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church The other from these Words And to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ver 19. CHAP. II. HE first insists upon these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Upon which he bestows three Chapters In so long a Discourse upon a Rock one might well expect to find something at least of solid reasoning but alas the whole from the beginning to the end is so sandy so incoherent and inconsequent that I am at a great loss to find any thing that does but look like an Argument For if at last all should be granted to St. Peter that he would hence infer it will in no wise conclude that Sovereign Dominion he contends for as will plainly appear by taking a survey of his 4th 5th and 6th Chapters SECT I. He grants that Christ is the primary and principal Foundation of the Church on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and St. Peter himself is mystically superedified * Chap. 4. pag. 100. by the way were not the Apostles and St. Peter true Christians If they were does not the Discussor speak absurdly when he says Not only every true Christian but the Apostles and St. Peter himself as if they were not included in the number of true Christians Need he have quoted St. Austin and St. Cyril for this Was it ever denied by Protestants Nay does he not say that Protestants traduce them as if they went about to despoil our Saviour of this Honour But to shew his reading in the Fathers he produces their Testimonies for what we affirm as well as for what we deny He might also have spared his pains in proving that things subordinate combat not one with another but suppose one another †Pag. 101. were it not that we should not then have seen his Learning in the distinction of fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But lest his liberal Concessions to our Saviour should seem to derogate from St. Peter's Glory he puts in this caution to secure it That Peter is not hereby excluded by no means for then the Pope is excluded too but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ ‖ Ibid. And this also if it will please him is granted by Protestants and therefore he is uncivil to the Fathers in summoning them again to bear Witness to it But though he cites the Fathers to no Purpose it may not be impertinent to note two things from those here cited 1. He quotes Tertul. Lib. contra Marc. * Pag. 103. as if it were but one single Book whereas Tertullian hath written five Books against Marcion each of them consisting of a great Number of Chapters As exact is he in the Words cited Tertullian enquiring the reason why Simon 's Name was changed to Peter his Words are these Sed cur Petrum Si ob vigorem fidei multae materiae solidaeque nomen de suo accomodarent An quia Petra et lapis Christus Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem offendiculi et in Petram scandali omitto caetera Itaque adfectavit carissimo Discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare †Advers Marc. l. 4. c. 13. Which he thus recites Christus Petrum ita vocat quia lapis Petra ipse est itaque affectavit carissimo discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare But I presume he took it upon trust and therefore may be excused 2. Three of the four Fathers he quotes give a reason of this name and the reason given by two of those three is as applicable to the other Apostles as to Peter So is that of St. Austin Consortium meretur nominis qui consortium meretur et operis And so is that of St. Ambrose Recte quia Petra Christus Simon nuncupatus est Petrus ut qui cum Domino fidei societatem habeat cum Domino habeat et nominis Dominici societatem Now since the reason they
Ursicinus cum Ambrosio societur Auxentius Absit hoc a Romana Fide. Had he foreseen the Council of Trent he would doubtless have foretold the time when this Sun would come to suffer a dreadful Eclipse in the Roman Horizon 2. That these words Super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Vpon this Rock I know the Church is built are not to be confined to Peter or his See only Jerom himself hath also taught us For upon these words Her Foundations are upon the holy Hills he says Who may we say are the Foundations the Apostles In them were the Foundations there the Faith of the Church was first placed and there the Foundations were laid †Fundamenta ejus in montibus Sanctis Quos nos possumus dicere Fundamenta Apostolos In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae ibi fundamenta sunt posita Comment in Psal 86. Does he say St. Peter was the only Foundation or more eminently the Foundation No but without making a difference or preferring him before the rest The Apostles were the Foundations In his first Book against Jovinian written eighteen years after this Epistle he expresly asserts That the Church is equally founded upon them all Once more St. Jerom makes all Bishops how much soever one may exceed another in Wealth to be of equal Worth and of the same Priesthood because they are all Successors of the Apostles ‖ Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus c. ejusdem meriti ejusdem est et Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit caeterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Epist ad Evagrium And could he have argued the equality of Bishops from their being the Apostles Successors had he not taken it for granted that the Apostles themselves were equal I shall add this only That in case Jerom had been of opinion that Peter had Authority over the other Apostles yet that he acknowledged no such Authority in the Pope over other Bishops we need go no further than this Epistle to prove in which he calls the Egyptian Confessors his Colleagues * Ideo hic collegas tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor When I reflect upon the Premises I cannot but a little wonder that this Saying of St. Jerom should leave such a deep Incision in this Gentleman's Mind that he needed to repair to any Doctor much less to so great a Doctor as Dr. Stillingfleet for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal it yet supposing him so deeply wounded I do not wonder that he found himself defeated of his desired Satisfaction For is it likely that Patient should meet with a Cure who throws by all the principal Ingredients of the Medicine prescribed and makes Application but of one and the most inconsiderable of them all Those Words he quotes as if they were all the Doctor had said are such as the Doctor himself lays no Stress upon for after them he adds But setting aside what advantages might be gain'd on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony †Rat. Account l. 2. c. 1. p. 31◠And then goes on for more than two Pages together in shewing to how little Purpose this Testimony is alledged which the Discussor has the Face to say he would fain shift off by making it a Piece of Flattery or a Complement to Damasus Behold the Virtue of triple Brass And yet had the Doctor insisted upon it that it was a Complement to Damasus he had said no more than what one of the learnedest Romanists of this age hath said ‖ Quod vero ait Super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio quicunque extra hanc domum comederit Agnum prophanus est c. dictum est officiose per exaggerationem Du Pin. dissertat 5. c. 2. His next Proof is taken out of St. Cyprian Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata * Pag. 125. 'T is strange he should think to find any thing for the Pope's Supremacy in St. Cyprian who to use the Words of a learned Author †Dodw. Disc concerning the one Altar c. c. 9. p. 253. makes all Bishops equal to have the same Power in solidum to be absolute Judges of their own 〈◊〉 and to be accountable to none but God and that there was but one Episcopacy among them all which notwithstanding was possessed by each of them not in parcels but entirely How inconsistent is this with that Supremacy which is challenged by the Pope over all the Bishops of the World However it is certain that this Passage also proves either too much or it proves nothing If when he says the Church is founded upon one it be understood exclusive of the other Apostles it proves too much viz. that the Church is founded not more eminently upon Peter but upon him alone If one be not exclusive of the rest it proves nothing And that Cyprian intended not to exclude the rest from an equal share with St. Peter is also manifest in that he says The other Apostles doubtless were that which Peter was endowed with equal Fellowship of Power and Honour ‖ Hoc erant utiquc caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis de unitat Eccles To reconcile St. Cyprian to himself a learned Romanist gives us this account why in one place he saith the Church is founded upon one and in another place upon many Cyprian saith he in the first Exposition viz. that the Church is founded on Peter seems to exclude the second that it is founded on all the Apostles but in Truth he does not exclude it if his Scope be considered In the first he writes that the Church is founded on ONE PETER that against the emergent Discords of Christians in matters of Religion he might commend the Vnity of the Church In the second he says the Church is constituted on Bishops that the same Vnity of the Church he had commended in ONE PETER he might commend in the MANY SVCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES As if he he should say whether it be one Apostle or many Apostles upon whom the Church is built but ONE Church is built and not MANY Wherefore in the first Exposition he disputes against those who would rend the Church by Schism in the second he reproves the lapsed who also had written to Cyprian himself of the usurped Peace given them by Paul the Martyr * Cyprianus in Expositione prima secundamvideturexcludere sed revera non excludit si scopus operis attendatur In prima super unum Petrum aedificatam esse scribit Ecclesiam ut adversus emergentes Christianorum in Religione discordias unitatem Ecclesiae commendaret In secunda constitutam esse super Episcopos dicit Ecclesiam ut quam Ecclesiae unitatem in uno Petro commendaverat eandem in
after this manner Either 1. Because these words I will give thee the Keys were directed to Peter alone tho meant to all the Apostles as St. Ambrose Or 2. Because to represent Unity the Keys were given first to Peter only which were afterward given to all the Apostles as St. Cyprian held That Bede cannot mean by the Words he quotes that Peter had any Degree of Power above the other Apostles is manifest in that he expresly attributes to them all the very same Power of binding and loosing that was given to Peter This Power says he is without doubt given to all the Apostles to whom Christ said in general after his Resurrection Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye remit c. ‖ Haec potestas sine dubio cunctis datur Apostolis quibus ab eo post resurrectionem dicitur Accipite Spiritum sanctum c. In Matth. 16. 19. And he says the same again presently after the Words quoted All therefore that he means by the Keys being given to Peter prae caeteris is this that they were given to Peter first and to the other Apostles after his Resurrection He acknowledges St. Austin affirms the Keys to be given to the Church when they were given to St. Peter * Pag. 165. But he cannot see that this diffringes the least ray of Claritude from his Glory but rather gilds it with a more radiant Lustre Yea with a lustre so radiant that it hath quite put out his Eyes for he must be blind who cannot see that this is utterly inconsistent with a Supremacy of Power in St. Peter Not if rightly understood says he for if you consult his Writings you will find the reason which moved him to affirm this was because Peter represented the Church now in what Quality he represented it he discovers himself in his Tract ult in Johan Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui Primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam And in Psal 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini Beatus Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatus principatum tenens But by his leave St. Austin in these places tells us only the Reason why he represented the Church not in what Quality he represented it He did bear the Person of the Church propter Apostolatus sui primatum propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit and Apostolatus principatum tenens that is by reason of the Primacy of order or Precedence he had among the Apostles for this is the Primacy St. Austin means as appears by his own Words in the place quoted by the Discussor himself in the next Page such a Primacy from which not the least ray of Sovereignty can be derived This he supposes was the reason why our Saviour made choice of him to represent the Church rather than another But to say he represented the Church in the Quality of its Prince or Governor is non-sence A Prince as such cannot represent his Subjects nor any Governor those under his Government Besides that these very places of St. Austin he produces are a direct Contradiction to this Conceit as may appear by a short Reflection upon them The first with the addition of those Words he hath omitted as not for his turn is thus in English Of which Church PETER for the Primacy of his Apostleship did bear the Person the whole being figured in him For as to what properly appertains to him he was by Nature one Man by Grace one Christian by more abundant Grace one and the first Apostle But when it is said to him I will give thee the Keys he signified the whole Church c. ‖ In which Words these two †Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam Quod enim ad ipsum proprie pertinet natura unus homo erat gratia unus Christianus abundantiore gratia unus idemque primus Apostolus sed quando ei dictum est Tibi dabo claves Universam significabar Ecclesiam In Evang Johan Tractat. 124. things may be observed each of which is destructive of the Discussor's Notion 1. That St. Austin makes him bear the Person of the Church neither as an Apostle nor as the prime Apostle this is evident by the Words sed quando He was an Apostle yea the prime Apostle but when it was said to him I will give thee the Keys he signified the Church He did not therefore represent the Church as he was the prime Apostle 2. That he bore the Person of the Church only as he signified the Church And has he that signifies another Dominion over him whom he signifies as for instance the Ambassador over his Prince The next place will give us a farther Proof of the Discussor's fair dealing For as some things says St. Austin are said which may seem properly to belong to the Apostle Peter which yet have not a clear Sense unless when they are referred to the Church of which he is acknowledged to have born the Person in a Figure by reason of the Primacy he had among the Disciples as is that I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and if there be any such like so Judas after a certain manner sustains the Person of the Jews the Enemies of Christ c. ‖ Sicut enim quaedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum proprie pertinere videantur nec tamen habent illustrem intellectum nisi cum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figura gestâsse personam sicuti est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum siqua ejusmodi ita Judas personam quodammodo sustinet inimicorum Christi Judaeorum c. In Psal 108. Why did he here omit the Words in figurâ unless because they were not favourable to his Design And why did he cut off all that concerns Judas but because he saw it was plainly against it These things are here observable 1. That I will give thee the Keys though spoken to Peter yet cannot have a clear Sense unless it be referr'd to the Church 2. That there might be other such things said to him 3. That Christ did not promise him the Primacy when he promised the Keys for he had that before 4. That he did bear the Person of the Church in a Figure 5. That Judas after a manner sustained the Person of Christ's Enemies and in another place he says not after a manner but absolutely that one wicked Man signified the Body of the Wicked as Peter did the Body of the Good the Body of the Church * Tractat. 50. in Evang. Johan Now will the Discussor say that Judas had Jurisdiction over the Body of the Wicked †See Epphata c. 1. It is irksom to insist on these things I shall therefore pass over his next Quotation from Serm. 23. de verb.