in the hands of his Steward A twofold difference at least must be grantend one in the Quality the other in the extent of the Power denoted by them 1. In the Quality The Keys in the Master's Hands denote an Original Absolute Supreme Power in the Steward's a Power delegated and subordinate to that of the Master Thus the Keys in Christ's Hands signify Supreme Power but if when given to Peter they denote the same Supremacy then there must be two Supreme Powers over the same Family which is a plain Contradiction Yea since as I have proved the same Keys were afterwards promised to and conferred upon all the Apostles if they ever denote Supremacy of Power there must be as many Supremes as there were Apostles 2. In the Extent of the Power the Master's Keys extend to the whole Family be it never so large the Stewards to that part of the Family only over which he is set Thus for instance the Lord high Steward of the King's Houshold his Power is limited he hath no Authority over the Officers of his Majesty's Chappel of his Chamber of his Stable c. Now the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is Christ's Family that part of it in Heaven the Discussor I think will not affirm that it is subjected to St. Peter but to Christ immediately That part on Earth is subdivided into particular Churches as so many lesser Families over which Christ hath appointed there shall be so many Stewards one Steward over one part another over another As therefore we find not in Scripture any one Steward set over the whole so we read of many Stewards with respect to the parts St. Paul and all the rest of the Apostles were Stewards in this Family as well as Peter or else St. Paul was out in his reckoning when he said to the Corinthians Let a Man so account of us as of the Ministers of CHRIST and STEWARDS of the Mysteries of God †1 Corinth 4. 1. Yea the same St. Paul supposes every Bishop to be a Steward of God ‖ Tit. 1. 7. But I need not insist longer upon such little Arguments CHAP. IV. THE next Chapter I may be allow'd to pass over for it no way tends to St. Peter's Glory that Christ said to him Get thee behind me Satan I know not who those several are that object as if by calling him so Christ had evacuated what he promised him before * Pag. 172. And he might well have spared the Pains he put himself to in proving the contrary Nor was the Denial of his Master a Ray of Claritude but by the Gentleman 's own Confession an Eclipse It was says he a short Eclipse a Trip rather than a Fall a verbal rather than a real a labial rather than a mental Abnegation †Pag. 174. O his excellent Faculty at ringing Changes upon Words Of those several Reasons the Fathers alledge why God permitted him to fall into this Offence in the fourth viz. because Christ designing him to be the SVPREME Ruler of the Church that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor penitent Sinners in absolving them c. ‖ Pag. 173. I desire him to leave out the Word supreme because it is not found in any of those Fathers he quotes for the proof of it 'T is true as Peter denied him so the rest fled for it †Mark. 14. 50. But why should he cite Theophilact for this I am apt to think St. Mark 's Authority might have been as good Nor do I deny but it will lessen his Fault If we consider the Dirity of that dreadful time when he denied his Master it was says he when the Power of Darkness ruled with his black Scepter it was when the Sun was obtenebrated the World shak'd with unusual Tremors and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder * Pag. 175. Though by the Discussor's leave it was not when but after he had denied Christ that the Sun was darkn'd the Earth quak'd and the Rocks rent I shall not enquire the reason why he passed over St. Peter's other Faults especially considering that he found an Answer prepared to his hand by Bellarmine but shall proceed to Chapter 5. We are now come to those Words Feed my Sheep which the Discussor finds to be strongly urged by Catholick Writers as he calls them in Defence of Peter 's supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction and impugned by Protestant Authors with all their Force c. I never before heard of any Protestant that impugn'd the Words but only that Sense the Papists would wrest them to which is so absurd that a very little Force will serve not only to impugn but quite to overthrow it as will appear by a view of the Particulars 1. We shall not much differ about the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says signifies to rule and govern as well as to feed This he sets himself to prove both by Reason and Authority By Authority both Christian and Heathen He first cites St. Austin St. Ambrose and Theophylact and then interposing a Reason he proceeds to Suetonius Dion Plato Homer Hesiod Cyril Xenophon St. Basil Methink St. Cyril and St. Basil come in a little odly among his Heathen Fathers But why doth he again prodigally expend his Oil and Pains in proving that which no Man questions Consult all the Protestant Commentators and see if any of them denies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule as well as to feed To what purpose then is all this waste I must acknowledg my want of Augury to divine unless it be to let the World see what a Man of reading he is And yet after all let the word signify what it will it can import no more than what belong'd not only to the other Apostles but to all the Bishops in common with them for Saint Paul exhorts the Elders of Ephesus to feed the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Acts 20. 28. the very same word our Saviour here used to Saint Peter And Saint Peter himself uses the same word in his Exhortation to the Jewish Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feed the Flock of God which is among you ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 2. Yea the Council of Trent which to a Papist is of as great Authority as the Holy Scripture after it hath shewed what is the Duty of all those who have the charge of Souls admonishes and exhorts them all That being mindful of the Divine Commands and an Ensample to the Flock they would in Judgment and Truth FEED and RVLE them * Sacrosancta Synodus eos admonet exhortatur ut Divinorum Praeceptorum memores factique forma gregis in judicio veritate pascant regant Sess 23. de Reformat c. 1. How vain then is Cardinal Bellarmin when he says That from this word it is easy to demonstrate That supreme Ecclesiastical Power is given to Peter †De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c.
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
Mystery but knew it as well as St. Peter will be sufficiently cleared First By Scripture Secondly By what the Discussor himself grants Thirdly By the Testimonies of the Antients And as an unanswerable Argument ad hominem Fourthly By the Testimonies of those modern Romanists he quotes for the contrary First By Scripture Of those many Texts that offer themselves one may suffice it being so plain and full to the purpose Many of Christ's Disciples being offended at his Doctrine they thereupon forsook him upon this he said to the twelve Will ye also go back The Question was propounded not to Peter only but to all the twelve though Peter alone returned the Answer as he did to this other Question To whom shall we go Thou hast the Words of eternal Life AND WE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BELIEVE AND HAVE KNOWN THAT THOV ART THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD †John 6. 69. The Discussor grants that St. Peter here undertook by answering for the rest to give an account of their Faith ‖ Pag. 83. Now this Confession is express'd in the very same Words with that under debate nor doth the Discussor himself deny it to be of the same import And that of these two Confessions this in which he grants St. Peter spake in the Name of them all was first in time Dr. G. hath proved to be manifestly evinced from the series of the Acts of our Saviour's Life recorded by the Evangelists * Serm. of St. Pet. p. 10. And that the said Doctor took this Confession before-made to signify as much as this latter of which we dispute appears by the Question he propounds and the Answer he returns to it But why was not St. Peter then presently honoured by our Saviour with a BLESSED ART THOV SIMON THE SON OF BARJONA To this says he Theophylact answers That our Lord suspended praising him then tho he deserved it lest being at a time when others deserted him it might seem done out of design and a piece of Artifice to retain him with him But Euthymius says he more probably thinks it was because he answered not for himself only but in the Name of all among whom there was one so far from being worthy of Praise that our Saviour presently after to rectify Peter's Mistake told them he was a Devil †Ibid. p. 15. It is therefore certain that either the rest of the Apostles at this time knew the Divinity of Christ or that St. Peter was mistaken in the account he gives of their Faith. The Discussor indeed says St. Peter committed a great Mistake and Dr. G. that he found he had been mistaken But how doth that appear Because says the Discussor Christ told them that that was not the Belief of all of them one of them being a Devil ‖ St. Per. Suprem p. 94. And to the same purpose Dr. G. quotes Euthymius Be it granted that our Saviour excepted one in that he excepted no more than one it plainly follows that all the rest that is ten to one knew him to be the Son of God incarnate The Conclusion then is unavoidable that Peter was not the only Apostle to whom this Mystery was then made manifest Secondly The same Conclusion follows from what the Discussor himself grants He dares not exclude the blessed Virgin nor St. John Baptist no nor the Devils from the Knowledg of this Mystery and he grants that Joseph Zachary and Elizabeth Simeon and Anna the Prophetess who were honoured with Revelations and Visions fill'd with the holy Ghost and had the Gift of Prophecy if they did not fully know his Consubstantiality they had at least some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscure ways of it * Pag. 92 93. I need not make Reflections upon all these It will be sufficient to shew that if John the Baptist and the Devils knew it the Apostles could not be ignorant of it And First That it follows from the Knowledg of John the Baptist and that several ways 1. Because St. John could not but think himself in Duty bound to impart this Knowledg to his Country-Men His Office was to bear Witness of Christ and what more worthy to be witnessed concerning him than the Divine Excellency of his Person He was by his Testimony to prepare the way to dispose Men to believe on him could he then without Unfaithfulness omit that which above all other Arguments would be of Power to work Faith in them He who was so careful to confirm his Disciples in the Belief that he was the true Messiah †Matth. 11. 2 3. can it be supposed that he would not acquaint them with that which would above all other things render them stedfast in this Belief And if he publish'd this in his popular Discourses who can imagin that it never came to the Ears of the Apostles 2. The same is clearly inferred from the means by which the Discussor supposes John the Baptist arriv'd at this Knowledg viz. the Voice from Heaven at Jesus's Baptism He who heard a noise from Heaven by a Celestial Herald promulging him to be the Son of God He who saw the holy Ghost effigiated in the Form of a Dove that may be question'd descending from above and lighting upon him may very well be imagined to be instructed who he was ‖ Pag. 92. If so may it not as well be imagin'd that the Apostles might be as well instructed by the Report of this Noise from Heaven they received from John May not a Man understand as much by hearing a thing at second hand and as firmly believe it too if he hear it from a Person of unquestionable Credit as if he heard it at the first And that John the Baptist bear record of this St. John the Evangelist hath told us * John 1. 32. And can any considering Man perswade himself that the Apostles of our Saviour should be ignorant of that which the Baptist openly proclaimed to all the Jews 3. St. John the Baptist gave yet more pregnant proofs to his Hearers of Christ's Divinity He bear record that he was The Son of God by way of eminency so as never any other Man was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Article if this be not thought enough he loudly testified that he had a real being before he was a Man. For John cried this was he of whom I spake HE THAT COMETH AFTER ME IS PREFERRED BEFORE ME FOR HE WAS BEFORE ME †John 1. 34. In which Words as a learned Bishop of this Church hath observed first John taketh to himself a Priority of time speaking of Christ He that cometh after me For so he came after him into the Womb at his Conception into the World at his Nativity c. 2dly He attributeth to Christ a Priority of Dignity saying He is perferred before me 3dly He rendereth the reason or cause of the great Dignity that belong'd to Christ saying for or rather because he was
says he not hearken to them who deny that the Church of God can remit all Sins Then follow the words quoted by the Discussor Therefore those wretched Persons while in Peter that is the Church they do not understand the Rock that is Christ and will not believe that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Church they themselves have lost them †Nec eos audiamus qui negant Ecclesiam Dei omnia peccata posse dimittere Itaque miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt et nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claves regni Coelorum ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt De Agone Christiano c. 31. They themselves have lost the Keys because they will not believe that they were given to the Church And why will they not believe this because in the Church they do not understand Christ in whom the Church is founded who hath committed the Keys to her The next Passage is quoted out of St. Austin contra 5 Haeres I suppose he means his Oration de quinque Haeresibus in which there is no such Passage and in case it were it would be altogether as impertinent as the former But that which comes next he is confident must gag us and make us as silenced Ministers as if the Wolves had first seen us viz. that St. Austin makes the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to be the Rock contra partem donati Numerate Episcopos ab ipsa sede beati Petri ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae * Pag. 107. It is well for them that this must silence us they will then for the future be no more troubled with disputing which is a Work they are very awkard at But if this will silence us how comes it to pass that we were not silenced long since this place having been often produced against us The truth is so far is it from stopping our Mouths that it furnishes us with a new Argument against Peter's Supremacy which when the Discussor shall consider he may perhaps be silenced himself or sneak away as it is said those Wolves do that are seen first by Men. Though if I should deny it the Discussor will not be able to prove that by the Rock is here meant the Succession of the Bishops of Rome yet as I have been all along liberal in my Concessions so should I for Argument sake grant him this also it will make nothing to the Advantage of his Cause For 1. If it be granted yet before the Discussor can hence infer the Bishop of Rome's or Peter's Supremacy he must prove that the Foundation of the Building is ever the supreme Lord of it 2. If it be granted yet the Succession of the Roman Bishops cannot by Virtue of these Words be the sole Rock or any more the Rock than the Succession of Bishops in any other Apostolical Church This will appear by restoring to the Text one little Word vel which the Discussor was so prudent as to leave out St. Austin's Words are these Numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede beati Petri et in ordine illo Petrum quis cui successit videte Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae From which Words these things are plain 1. That St. Austin here uses the very same Argument against the Donatists that Irenaeus Tertullian and several other Fathers had used before against the Hereticks of their times to prove the Catholick Doctrine viz. The Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches †Iren. l. 3. c. 3. l. 4. c. 63. Tertul. de Praescript c. 32. Cyprian Ep. ad Lapsos Edit Pamel 27. 2. That he proposes the Church of Rome only as a single Instance instead of all those Apostolical Churches that might have been mentioned As Irenaeus before had done who because it would have been tedious to enumerate the Successions of all Churches brings for an example that of Rome which was the greatest and most famous * Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae c. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Is Casaub Exercit 15. p. 310. And therefore he says not simply Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede beati Petri c. But numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede c. Which is in effect to say with Irenaeus Because it would be too long to reckon the Successions of Bishops in all those Churches in which the Catholick Doctrine hath been preserved ever since the Apostles consult at least the Succession of the Church of Rome from the first Founder of it St. Peter And therefore 3. And consequently if it be the Succession of the Bishops of Rome that he here makes the Rock he implicitely affirms the same of any other Apostolical Church in which there had been a continued Succession of Catholick Bishops which is further confirmed in that he elsewhere arguing against the same Donatists joyns the Church of Jerusalem together with that of Rome and makes the Chair of the former no way inferior in Authority to the latter If says he to Petilian all the Bishops through the World were such as thou most falsely accusest them to be yet what hath the Chair of the Church of ROME done in which Peter sate and in which at this day Anastasius sits or of the Church of JERVSALEM in which James sat and in which at this day John sits with which we are joyned in Catholick Vnity and from which you by a cursed Fury have separated your selves †Veruntamen si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid secit Ecclesia Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Johannes sedet quibus nos in Catholica Unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis Contra Lit. Petiliani l. 2. c. 51. And therefore 4. Nothing can hence be inferred for the Supremacy of Peter more than for the Supremacy of James or any other Apostle If any shall ask why St. Austin in case he did not ascribe some preeminence to the Church of Rome should mention that rather than the Church of Antioch of Jerusalem Or why he did not chuse to instance in the Church of Carthage rather than in any other The Answer is obvious To the first because the Church of Rome was at that time the most famous and of greatest esteem of any Church in the World To the second because the Donatists objected against the Church of Carthage and other African Churches that the Succession of Bishops had been in them interrupted by Traditors whereas they could not pretend this against the Church of Rome ‖ Is Casaub Exercit. 16. n. 149. P. 540. SECT II. All that the Discussor contends for
Designs of impoisoned Hereticks Old excellent But briefly to shew the vanity of this Criticism 1st The difference he makes between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not so much as any seeming Foundation in Scripture 2dly It is plainly inconsistent with the use of these words by the Fathers For as they commonly call Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they give the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rock to the other Apostles The Author of the Homily of the twelve Apostles attributed to St. Chrysostom calls them all the Rock of the Church †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Serm. in Sanct. Duod Apost tom 6. Edit Front. Duc. St. Jerom in the place fore-cited saith Christ is the Rock and he gave to his Apostles that they should be called Rocks ‖ Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Comment in Amos 6. v. 12. And upon these words The Rocks were rent The Rocks says he were the hard Hearts of the Gentiles Or the Rocks were the Predictions of the Prophets who both themselves with the Apostles received the name of a ROCK from the ROCK Christ * Et Petrae scissae sunt dura corda Gentilium sive Petrae universa vaticinia Prophetarum qui et ipsi a Petra Christo cum Apostolis Petrae vocabulum acceperunt c. Hieron Hedibiae Quest 8. Nor is this name given to the Apostles only but Chrysostom calls St. Stephen the rational Rock †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea this Title is not only by Origen but by other Antients applied to every sound Believer As by St. Ambrose in the place before-quoted And Greg. Nazianzen gives a reason why they are call'd by this name ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orat. 28. It is therefore no dismounting of Peter from his due Honour to say the other Apostles were Rocks But 4thly I ask what is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Peter is so called Does it signify sometimes a Rock-Foundation sometimes a Foundation of Wood sometimes of Straw or Hay No surely when St. Peter is called by this Name it ever denotes a Rock an immovable an inexpugnable Rock And why not so when it is absolutely without any lessening adjunct without any note of distinction attributed to the other Apostles When the twelve Sons of Jacob are called the twelve Patriarchs as the twelve Apostles are called the twelve Foundations would not he deserve to be laugh'd at who shall say that the name Patriarch when attributed to Reuben signifies a Princely Father but when ascribed to Simeon denotes a Subject-Father And is not he as ridiculous who shall say that by this word Foundation when affirmed of Peter is meant a Rock when of James a Wool-sack when of Andrew a Hay-mow I need say no * Serm. of St. Pet. p. 24. more to expose the folly of this groundless fancy I shall therefore return to the Doctor 3. The Apostles themselves he says understood it to be so This he dares not stand to and therefore adds at least after the coming of the Holy Ghost Why not before the coming of the Holy Ghost if our Saviour meant it by these Words Thouart Peter c. It seems his meaning was so obscurely expressed that it could not be understood without the help of a Miracle But how does it appear that the Apostles understood it so after the coming of the Holy Ghost The four Registers left us of their Names are so many Authentick Testimonies to inform us the first by St. Matth. c. 10. v. 2. The second by St. Mark c. 3. v. 16. c. For although St. ANDREW were before St. PETER in divers respects c. Yet PETER by all the foresaid Evangelists is evermore set before ANDREW and the rest of the APOSTLES But if St. Paul's Testimony be as Authentick as that of the Evangelists then this Argument is as good against Peter's Supremacy That St. Paul when he names him with other Apostles never puts him first but sometimes last As the Brethren of the Lord and Cephas †1 Cor. 9. 5. I am of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas ‖ 1 Cor. 1. 12. How vain this Argument is we may learn from a Gentleman of the Roman Communion It is saith he with very little Reason that they make an Argument of this to prove his Royalty in the Church In SPAIN where the most honourable walk the last they will not fail to allege those Places where St. PETER is named the last as in that Passage where it is said I AM THE DISCIPLE OF PAUL AND I OF APOLLOS AND I OF CEPHAS For I remember that at PARIS where they a little better understand Divinity than in SPAIN a good Bishop and an Abbot that did maintain that the Passage where it is said that James Peter and John are reputed Pillars of the Church prov'd well the Primacy of St. PETER For said the Bishop when three worthy Persons walk together they always put the most honourable in the middle This is what is commonly said that an Advocate well paid always finds the cause of his Client good * Ainsi c ' est avec bien peu de raison que l'on fait un argument de cela pour prouver sa rogautè dans l'Eglise En Espagne où les plus honorables marchent les derniers on ne manqueroit pas de alleguer les lieux où S Pierre est nommé le dernier commé dans le passage out il est dit Je suis Disciple de Paul c. Moyers surs et Honnestes pour la Conversion de tous les Heretiques p. 16 17. But St. Matthew not only puts him in the first place but expresly gives him the Title of PRIMVS c. And there is another remarkable Circumstance in the aforesaid Catalogues that whereas the other Apostles are never named in order but differently not only by different Evangelists but by one and the same c. Yet PETER is every where set in the Head of the Catalogue and preferr'd before them all which certainly cannot be imputed to CHANCE or the WILL of the Writer but to the particular Direction of the Holy Ghost †Serm. of St. Peter p. 24 25 26. We do not impute this to Chance or to the Will of the Writer but suppose there was a special Reason for it but this Reason we say was his Primacy of Order not any Superiority of Power over the rest of the Apostles He is Primus who hath the first place in any Society and for that Reason is expresly so call'd and put in the Head of the Catalogue as the Doctor very well knows And this place St. Peter enjoy'd while our Saviour lived on Earth but after his Ascension to Heaven James the Brother of our Lord was set above him For he as Eusebius and St. Jerom tell us ‖ Euseb Hist Eccles
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
pluribus Apostolorum successoribus commendaret c. Launoy Epp. P. 5. Ep. ad Voellum But to clear up St. Cyprian's meaning I shall speak a little more distinctly His Sense in this matter may I think be comprised in these Propositions which I shall now barely mention and if occasion require it shall hereafter fully confirm 1. That our Saviour when he spake these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church promised to Peter alone and no other that the Church should be founded on him Hence it is that he says the Church is built upon one 2. Whatsoever in these Words he promised to Peter he afterwards conferr'd the same and in the same Degree upon the other Apostles Hence it is that he makes them all equal in Honour and Power with Peter 3. That he promised this at first to Peter alone to recommend that Unity he designed to have in his Church and to make him the Pattern of it so far was he from thinking of any Power over the rest here promised to Peter that he never so much as intimates it 4. That the Unity he made him the Pattern of was not that of the universal but of particular Churches he promised to build his Church upon one to shew that in every particular Church he would have but one that should be the Principle of Unity the Foundation upon which all the rest should depend 5. That the Bishops as Successors of St. Peter are this Principle of Unity and the Foundation every one in his own Church upon which all the rest depend It never entred into his Thoughts that any one Bishop was to be the Principle of Unity to all other Bishops and Churches in the World. Nor did Stephen Bishop of Rome in his Contests with Cyprian ever pretend this which doubtless he would have done had any such Prerogative been then claim'd by Stephen or granted by Cyprian since this without any more ado must have brought Cyprian to a Submission to him And therefore 6. He supposed these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock c. were as applicable to all Bishops as they were to St. Peter himself and accordingly they are by him so apyly'd and the Rights of all particular Bishops established upon them so far was he from finding in them any peculiar Prerogative of the Bishop of Rome And what is there now of St. Peter's Soveraignty in all this or of the Churches being built more eminently upon him than upon the other Apostles Not so much as one word that looks that way I presume he quotes the next words out of Cyprian Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedrane atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde Vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est for these two reasons 1. Because the Church of Rome is here called the principal Church 2. Because Priestly Unity is said to arise from thence But neither of these are to his purpose Not the first it being called the principal Church because it was constituted in the principal City as Rigaltius notes upon the Words and quotes the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon to confirm it †In urbe principali constitutam Can. 28. Concil Chalced c. Not the second because by Priestly Vnity he means no more than the Presidency of one Bishop in one City which he says is derived from the Church of Rome because that was the See of Peter who was the Pattern of this Unity And by this he aggravates the crime of Felicissimus and his Complices who having set up another Bishop at Carthage in opposition to Cyprian durst make their Appeal to Rome which was the example of Episcopal Unity to other Churches ‖ See Mr. Dodw. dissertat Cypt. dissert 7. p. 161 I may here again be allowed to admire this Gentleman's Discretion or Sincerity in the choice of his Testimonies Nothing can be imagined more directly contrary to that Papal Supremacy he contends for than this very Epistle of St. Cyprian out of which this Passage is taken in which the good Father most severely condemns Appeals to Rome asserts that every one's Cause ought to be heard where the Fault is committed that to every Pastor a portion of the Flock is assign'd which he rules and governs as one that is to give an Account to God alone c. But it may be presumed the learned Gentleman knows nothing of this nor ever saw any more of the Epistle than these two lines which he found quoted by some other Author as wise as himself Had he perused the whole Epistle he would not have dared to quote one word out of it lest the Reader by examining that should take occasion to read all the rest His next Testimony from Greg. Nazienzen says That of all the Disciples of Christ Peter is called the Rock and intrusted with the Foundations of the Church * Pag. 125. Which hath been already more than sufficiently answer'd Had he look'd back no further than the Oration immediately foregoing †Orat. 25. he might have seen That this Father assigns to every Apostle his particular Province independently on St. Peter and by consequence did not suppose that the Church was built more eminently upon him than the rest His last Quotation is out of S. Basil's 6th book against Eunomius ‖ Pag. 115. Why did he not quote the 16th Book he might have done so as well as the 6th there being no more than five Books against Eunomius in St. Basil's Works but this is more than he knew and therefore he is to be pardon'd However the place he refers to is I suppose in his 2 d book where speaking of Peter he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who for the excellency of his Faith took upon himself the building of the Church which is no more than what may be truly affirmed of St. James St. John or any other Apostle If the Reader please to compare the words cited by the Discussor with those in St. Basil he will further see that he is not wont to consult the Authors he quotes And now at last that I may if possible oblige the Discussor I will grant what he has not prov'd that in some respect it may be truly said the Church is built more eminently on St. Peter As 1. Because by his preaching especially the first Christian Church was gathered among the Jews Peter standing up with the eleven lift up his Voice and said Ye Men of Judea c. * Acts 2. 14. Peter with the eleven what means it says St. Chrysostom They uttered one common Voice and he was the Mouth of them all the eleven stood by bearing witness to those things that were spoken by him †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in loc And by this Sermon three thousand were converted which together with the Disciples before-mentioned made up the first Christian Church 2. Because he first preached the Gospel to the Gentiles as we
‖ Supplement de Scriptor p. 100. But it matters not whether since what he says is nothing to our present purpose For suppose none of the Apostles but Peter had the title of Pastor from our Saviour will this give him any preeminence if they all had the Office and Authority signified by this Title The truth is the Title it self is no where given by our Saviour to Peter he commands him indeed to feed his Flock but if this be to give him the Title of Pastor the same Title is given not only by St. Paul * Acts 20. 28. but by St. Peter too †1 Pet. 5. 3. to every Bishop And what will the Pope get by this 2. As none of them say the whole Flock so those of them which say the Flock was commended to him meant no more to include the other Apostles than they did Peter himself they taking them all for Shepherds as much as they did him Though this hath been sufficiently clear'd already in that they thought there was nothing contained in those Words feed my Sheep that was peculiar to St. Peter but what was applicable in common not only to all the Apostles but to all Bishops that succeeded them yet I shall plainly prove it from the Context of two of those very places which the Discussor hath alledged for the Proof of the contrary viz. the one that of St. Ambrose the other that of St. Basil 1. Within less than three lines after those Words produced from St. Ambrose for Peter's Pastorship over the Apostles follow those words I have put in the margin ‖ Beatus ille servus qui potest dicere lac vobis potum dedi non escam nondum enim poteratis Novit enim quos quemadmodum pascat Quis nostrum hoc facere potest Quis nostrum potest vere dicere factus sum infirmis infirmus ut infirmos lucrifaciam Et tamen ille tantus ad curam gregis electus a Christo qui sanaret infirmos curaret invalidos Haereticum a commisso sibi ovili post unam correptionem repellit ne unius erraticae ovis scabies serpenti ulcere totum gregrem contaminet Proaem ad 5. l. de fide Edit Paris an 1614. in which he says of St. Paul all the same things he had before said of St Peter As 1. That he was also that blessed Servant 2. That he was chosen by Christ to take care of the Flock 3. That the Sheepfold not part of the Sheepfold was committed to him Let the Discussor read the whole passage and then tell me whether it be more clear from the Words relating to Peter that Paul was infolded in the Flock intrusted to him than it is from the Words concerning Paul that Peter was infolded in the Flock committed to his care yea whether the Advantage doth not lie rather on Paul's side For in saying he rejects an Heretick lest the Scab of one wandering Sheep should infect the WHOLE FLOCK he seems to imply that St. Paul had the whole Flock under his care which is more than he says of S. Peter But if the Flock must still comprehend the Apostles it unavoidably follows that the Apostles were committed to Paul's shepherdly Government and to Peter's too and Peter governed Paul and Paul governed Peter and they were both of them at once both Subject and Sovereign 2. St. Basil after the Words cited by the Discussor viz. That Christ constituted Peter Shepherd after himself adds giving an equal Power afterward to all Pastors and Teachers * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constitut Monast c. 22. And if to all Pastors and Teachers then certainly to the Apostles who were the prime Pastors and Teachers and if all the Apostles had equal Power with Peter then Peter had no Power over them and by consequence they were not under his Shepherdly Government What follows next is a high Encomium of St. Peter from whose personal Excellencies I have no Inclination to detract though I see no reason to advance him to the debasing of all the rest Let him be if he please the most resplendent amongst the Apostles the most refulgent of the holy Dozen yet to say that therefore he was culled out of that illustrious Society by the discerning Eye of Christ as the fittest Person among them to be his Vicar as if he made him alone his Vicar betrays such unacquaintance not only with the holy Scriptures but with the Writings of the Ancients as one would not expect from so great a Pretender to Antiquity Christ made all the Apostles his Vicars when he gave them that Commission John 20. 21 22 23. And St. Paul reckoned himself and the other Apostles his Vicars when he said We are Ambassadors for Christ We beseech you in CHRIST'S STEAD †2 Corinth 5. 20. And that this Title was anciently given to all Bishops Mons Launoy hath amply proved by the Testimonies of Fathers Councils School-men and other learned Divines of the Church of Rome Yea that the Bishops of Rome were so far from taking it to be their peculiar that scarce any one of them till a thousand Years or more after Christ called himself by this name but was content with the more humble Title of the Vicar of Saint Peter ‖ Launoy Epp. parte 3. Ep. Michaeli Marollio He says Jerom observes on Mark 16. that the whole Flock was recommended to Peter ut sit una Fides sub uno Pastore Bellarmine Labbe and Sixtus Senensis will acquaint him that the Comment on the Gospel of Saint Mark that passes under Saint Jerom's name is none of his * Bell. de Script Eccl. p. 137. Edit Lugd. 1675. Labb Dissert Hist de Script Eccl. tom 1. p. 440. Sixt. Senens Bibl. S. l. 4. p. 247. But having consulted three Editions of St. Jerom I can find no such words nor any like them in the Comment upon that Chapter Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour was pleased at his departure out of this World to entrust the care of his Sheep to Peter as a faithful and vigilant Guardian and not only to him but to his SUCCESSORS AFTER HIM But by his Successors he cannot mean the Bishops of Rome only for as he says nothing of them in the words before or after so he includes himself in the number of these Successors though he was yet no Bishop but a Priest only And if the reason why Christ intrusted his Sheep to Peter was because he found him a faithful and vigilant Guardian as he had the same reason to intrust them to the other Apostles so for the contrary reason few Popes have been found for a thousand years to whom he would have intrusted them I have now examined the Texts of Holy Scripture and the Greek and Latin Fathers alledged by the Discussor for the proof of St. Peter's Supremacy And upon a review of the whole I think every unbiass'd Reader will conclude with me 1. That his Proofs from