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
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
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
sententiam nimis subtiliter probando perdidit In loc Is not the word used in Scripture in both numbers without any the least difference in sense For instance St. Matthew says when Jesus was baptiz'd the Heavens were opened ‖ Matth. 3. 16. St. Luke says the Heaven was opened * Luke 3. 21. Yea the same Evangelist uses them both indifferently In the Lord's Prayer the word is plural in the Introduction singular in the third Petition both in St. Matthew and Luke and in both used in the same sense And so far were the Fathers from making any difference between them that they on the contrary frequently express Matth. 18. 18. in the plural Number and Matth. 16. 19. in the singular as Chamier hath proved at large †Panstrat Cathol tom 2. de Oecum Pontif. l. 11. c. 13. But granting his Argument to be nothing yet it is evident from hence says the Discussor that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent and to surmount the rest in the Power of the Keys ‖ Pag. 163. This is not more evident than it is from the place immediately before-cited that he believed the contrary But suppose as Maldonate says that he was in this a Dissenter from all the other Fathers as in many other Points he was shall his sole Judgment and that grounded upon a childish Error be of more Authority with us than the more solid Judgment of all the rest And why should we value his Judgment in this more than the Romanists do in that which immediately follows viz. That by how much the better any Man is by so much the greater power he hath of binding and loosing which in the Church of Rome is no less than Heresy But the Truth is this place of Origen is nothing to the Purpose For he doth not here compare Peter to the rest of the Apostles to whom he supposed the Power of the Keys was equally given Matth. 16. but to those private Christians only who should thrice admonish their offending Brother he supposing the Words Matth. 18. 18. to be directed to those alone who told their Brother of his fault as will be evident to every one who shall impartially consider the place The next Father he quotes is St. Hilary And how does it appear that he gives a larger Portion of the Keys to Peter than to the other Apostles Thus that whereas he calls the other Apostles Janitores Coeli the Door-Keepers of Heaven he calls Peter by way of Transcendency O Beatus Coeli Janitor O blessed Door-Keeper of Heaven Is not this Demonstration It might pass for such with the Discussor had not St. Hilary in another place unluckily given the same Title and another too as high to all the Apostles You O HOLY AND BLESSED MEN who for the merit of your Faith have obtained the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN c. * Vos O sancti et beati viri ob fidei vestrae meritum claves regni Coeloruin sortiti et ligandi atque solvendi in Coelo et in terra jus adepti de Trinitat l. 6. Col. 74. Edit Paris 1631. What is this but to call them all the Holy and Blessed Door-Keepers of Heaven But the Discussor says He likewise affirms him advanced above the rest Advanc'd in what If he speak to the Purpose in the Power of the Keys How does he prove it By these Words Quia solus respondit caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae Confessione locum promeruit But what if the Word locum be not in Hilary What shall I think of his foisting in one Word for another Was not the Action unworthy and disingenuous in him especially who pretends so much to Truth and honest Dealing The best Palliation I can make for him is that he found it in Bellarmine †De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 12. St. Hilary's words are these Qui in cunctorum Apostolorum silentio Dei silium revelatione Patris intelligens ultra humanae infirmitatis modum supereminentem Beatae Fidei suae confessione Gloriam promeruit ‖ De Trinitate l. 6. col 78. How wide is the difference between these words and those of the Discussor It was pity he omitted the word Beatae because from thence he might have observ'd the transcendency of Peter's Faith. But that which I observe is That instead of Locum St. Hilary hath Gloriam Now since he was of opinion though different from all that went before him that Peter alone at that time knew the Divinity of Christ by a special Revelation from God what can he mean by this supereminent Glory but that he obtained the honor of confessing Christ's Divinity while the other Apostles were as yet ignorant of it But it is observable that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have received the Keys of Fidei suae meritum he asserts in his Comments on Matth. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse From whence he infers That he having a greater portion of Faith consequently had a larger power of the Keys But nothing can be more evident than that Hilary does not mean by anteisse that Peter had a greater Portion of Faith than the rest but that his Faith was before theirs in time the words immediately following being these For the rest not knowing it he first answered Thou art the Son of the living God * Nam ignorantibus caeteris primus respondit Tu es Filius Dei Vivi Comment in Matth. Can. 14. But is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that a Bishop hath the power of the Keys more or less in proportion to the measure of his Faith If so then supposing Peter had a Supremacy of Power the Pope cannot succeed him therein unless he succeed him also in the Supremacy of his Faith And I fear the Discussor will be hardly put to it to name any one Pope whose Faith hath surmounted that of all other Bishops The five next Testimonies viz. those of St. Ambrose though no such words as those he quotes are in Serm. 66. Cyril Basil Chrysostom Cyprian are all impertinent because they only affirm simply that the Keys were given or entrusted to Peter So Ambrose He it is that received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven So Cyril Peter bearing the Keys of Heaven c. There is nothing of comparison in any of these Quotations between Peter and the other Apostles nothing to insinuate that he hath the Keys in a higher degree than they If any thing be hence inferr'd it must be this That Peter had the Keys solely because they seem to speak exclusively of the other Apostles But that this cannot be their meaning the Discussor himself grants †Pag. 158 159 161 162. That they cannot mean that he had this Power in a higher degree than the other Apostles is as evident because the very same Fathers make him and the rest equal in this Power What then is the reason why they speak
give of it is common to them all we may hence reasonably conclude that they thought this illustrious Title as truly applicable to the other Apostles as to St. Peter But one thing I may not omit lest the Discussor should think it unanswerable Upon a Quotation out of St. Basil Hom. 28. de Poenit. to shew that Peter's being the Rock doth not exclude Christ from being so he makes this Remark 'T is very observable here that this Father acknowledges Christ to have made the other Apostles LIGHTS SHEEP and PRIESTS but he mentions but ONE ROCK WHICH IS PETER ‖ P. 103 104. This Criticism he adds may be observed in St. Ambrose lib. 6. Lucae Ego sum inquit lux Mundi c. And St. Jerome likewise accords herein in his Comments on Abdias c. * Pag. 104. It is pity this critical Observation should be lost and yet who can help it for when these Fathers in the places quoted express Rock and Disciple in the singular number as he made a Rock says St. Basil †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He denied not to his Disciple the favour of that Name says S. Ambrose ‖ Petra erat Christus etiam Discipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiam non negavit Comment lib. 6. in Evang. Luc. c. 9. tom 3. col 117. And the Rock gave to Peter that he should be a Rock says St. Jerom * Ipsa Petra donavit Petro ut Petra fit Comment in Abd. The utmost they can mean is no more than one of these two things or both together 1. That these words Vpon this Rock were directed in particular to St. Peter Or 2. That this Title Rock was given to him as his proper Name though as to its meaning it might be as truly ascribed to the other Apostles For so far was St. Ambrose from denying that the other Apostles were Rocks that within two lines after the words quoted by the Discussor he supposes that every Christian may and ought to be a Rock for the same reason as St. Peter was For having said that Christ gave him this Name because he had from the Rock solidity of Constancy and firmness of Faith he adds Therefore do thou endeavour that thou also mayst be a Rock therefore seek the Rock not without thee but within thee †Petra est Christus eiam Discipulo suo hujusvocabuli gratiam non negavit ut et ipse sit Petrus quòd de Petra habeat soliditatem constantiae fidei firmitatem Enitere ergo ut tu Petra sis itaque non extra te sed intra te Petram require c. Ambros lib. 6. in Evang. Luc. c. 9. col 117. Edit Paris 1614. But to have added this would have defeated his design in quoting the rest St. Jerom expresly says in the plural Number That Christ is the Rock who vouchsafed to his Apostles also that they should be called Rocks saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church ‖ Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Comment lib 3. in Amos. c. 7. v. 12. tom 6. pag. 102. Bas 1553. Where from these words Thou art Peter c. he infers that Christ the Rock bestowed not only upon Peter but upon the other Apostles that they should be called Rocks What is now become of this Observable We may without danger grant that Exposition of St. Austin he contends for * P. 104 105. and therefore have no reason to court him cap in hand for the other But when he says that by his varying from his former frequent Explication he deviated from St. Ambrose who baptised him he says not true if the Comments upon the Epistles be St. Ambrose's which the Discussor quotes as his for he there expounds the Rock to be the Confession of the Catholick Faith made by Peter * Unde dicit Dominus ad Petrum Super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam hoc est in hac Catholicae Fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam Comment Epist ad Ephes c. 2. Tom. 3. col 498. which is in effect to expound it of Christ But I grant those Comments to be none of his Whether St. Austin changed his former Exposition upon a Mistake or whether he were no good Hebrician ‖ Pag. 106. is not here pertinent to be enquired In what sense he calls Peter Head of the Church shall be afterward shewed That in most perspicuous terms he acknowledges in several places of his Writings PETER's SVPREMACY * Pag. 107. has not so much as shadow of proof in any of the places produc'd by the Discussor But St. Austin declares them Wretched and Hereticks that disown him to be the Rock Thus Agon Christ he calls them miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt This is grosly to abuse St. Austin had he considered either the Words that go before or that follow those he hath cited he might have seen that St. Austin could not by the Rock in this place mean Peter for he tells us just before that Peter sustains the Person of the Church and that the Keys are given to the Church when they are given to him To the same purpose are the words that immediately follow †De Agone Christiano c. 30 31. Now could he bear the Person of the Church built upon the Rock and at the same time be the Rock it self upon which it is built St. Austin therefore by the Rock meant Christ himself and by Peter the Church of Christ as he plainly expresses himself in other places This Name Peter says he was imposed upon him by Christ that by that figure he might signify the Church for because Christ is the Rock Peter is the Christian People ‖ Serm. 13. de Verb. Dom. secund Matth. Again The Rock was Christ upon which Foundation even Peter himself is built for other Foundation can no Man lay besides that which is laid which is Christ Jesus The Church therefore which is founded in Christ received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Peter that is the power of binding and of loosing Sins For that which properly the Church is in Christ that by signification is Peter in the Rock BY WHICH SIGNIFICATION CHRIST IS VNDERSTOOD TO BE THE ROCK PETER TO BE THE CHVRCH * Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum etiam ipse aedificatus est Petrus fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est quod est Christus Jesus Ecclesia ergo quae fundatur in Christo c. Tractat. 24. in Evang. Johannis And that this was St. Austin's notion of the Rock in this place will farther appear if we consider the Scope of his Discourse which was to prove that remission of Sins is to be obtained in the Church Let us
in the next Chapter is that those Fathers who assert St. Peter 's Faith to be the Rock do not thereby exclude his Person * Pag. 108. Though it were easy to shew if their sense be expressed by their Words that some of them do yet I may grant him this also And is it not pity that so much Labour should be lost as he hath spent in the Proof of it That Theophylact Epiphanius St. Hilary St. Chrysostom St. Cyril St. Ambrose St. Basil St. Jerom St. Cyprian Tertullian should be all summon'd to bear Witness to that which is not denied Though I cannot foresee any advantage he can take against Protestants from this Concession yet when he says That to affirm the Church to be built on Peter 's Faith is not to bar or disclude his Person but to signify the CAVSE why it was superedified on him †Pag. 110. Since I have already proved that the same Faith was common to them all it plainly follows for the same cause that the Church was built upon them all and not upon Peter only And the meaning of those Fathers who chose rather to affirm the Church to be built upon St. Peter's Faith or Confession than upon his Person was not to assign the REASON why our Saviour made choice of him above the rest to build his Church upon as Dr. Tho. G. tells us ‖ Sermon of St. Peter p. 18. Since those very Fathers as I have shew'd were of opinion that the other Apostles had the very same Faith that St. Peter made Confession of Though all his Quotations are here impertinent because that is so for the proof of which they are brought yet because there may be some such Words or Expressions in some of them as shew these Fathers were of Opinion not only that the Church was built upon Peter's Person which is that for which he alledges them but as the Discussor may pretend infer their Belief of his Supremacy I shall therefore examine those which make the fairest shew this way which are one Passage of Theophylact another of St. Chrysostom's and those Titles which some of them give to St. Peter such as Prince and Head of the Apostles c. Theophylact he says introduces our Saviour calling St. PETER the next Rock of the Church after himself * Pag. 111. Though the Word next be not in Theophylact yet suppose it were it would do him no Service For might not Christ call him the next to himself for that Priority of Order he had in the Colledg of the Apostles tho he had no Jurisdiction over the rest That Stone which lies next to the chief Corner-Stone hath it by virtue of its place any Dominion over the other Foundation-Stones Had the Discussor consider'd how Theophylact stood affected toward the Bishop of Rome's universal Monarchy he would have been so wise as not to have mentioned him for fear of suggesting to his Reader an Authority against it For whatsoever opinion he may be supposed to have had of St. Peter's Supremacy it is certain he could have none of the Pope's for as he was contemporary with Michael Cerularius who excommunicated the Pope with the whole Latin Church for adding the particle Filioque to the Creed as Barronius hath proved * Ad an 1071. n. 15 16 17. c. so it appears by his Comments that he sided with him in that Controversie But he says St. Chrysostom confesses his universal Jurisdiction How does that appear Because he says God set Jeremy over one Nation but Peter over all the World ‖ Pag. 111. A learned Romanist shall answer this Chrysostom saith he Hom. 55. on Matth. says that Peter was to be the Foundation in that sense that he was to be the Pastor of the Church and the Preacher of the Gospel But when the same Chrysostom says that Peter was set over the whole World the meaning is not that he was set over all Churches simply but that he was not to preach the Gospel to one People only as Jeremy but to every Nation * Chrysostomus Hom. 55. in Matth. Petrum futurum esse dicit eo sensu fundamentum quâ—d Ecclesiae Pastor futurus sit Evangelii praedicator Cum vero idem ait Petrum praepositum esse universo terrarum orbi sensus non est quod omnibus omnino Ecclesâ—is sit praepositus sed quod non uni Populo ut Jeremias sed omni genti Evangelium esset annuntiaturus Ellies du Pin de antiq Eccl. Discipl dissert 4. p. 307. But methinks the Discussor who quotes St. Chrysostom so often might have remembred what he says of St. Paul The care of divers Nations says he was committed to the Angels but none of them so governed the Nation entrusted to him as Paul did the WHOLE WORLD †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De laudibus Pauli Apost Hom. 2. tom 5. p. 502. Edit Front. Duc. To MICHAEL was committed the care of the Jews but to PAUL the Earth and the Sea and the inhabited World and the Desert ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. He had not says he the care of one Family but also of Cities and of Peoples and of Nations and of the whole World * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 2 Epist ad Corinth c. 11. v. 28. Can St. Peter's Diocess be of greater extent Had Chrysostom thought him Paul's Superior would he not only have affirm'd Paul to be of equal Dignity with him but plainly intimate that he was in honour to be preferr'd before him as he does in his Comment upon Galat. 1. 18. Had St. Chrysostom taken Peter for the Monarch of the universal Church would he have set St. James above him in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem as every one will see he doth who will but take the pains to read his 33 Homily on the Acts of the Apostles In short no Man can imagine that St. Chrysostom did not think that every other Apostle had a Province as universal as that of St. Peter who considers that he makes them Rulers who had not received Nations and several Cities but had all of them in common the whole World delivered into their Hands †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. De utilitat Lect. Script Tom. 5. pag. 590. Edit Front. Duc. This is I think enough to unveil those imposturous Gulleries to use the Discussor's learned Words which several misguided Writers the Discussor for one obtrude on their easie Readers under the umbrage of this eminent Author by depraving his Sense and contorting his meaning ‖ Pag. 114. As for those honourable Titles which in some of these Quotations are bestowed upon St. Peter as Prince of the Apostles the Head of the Apostolick Quire c. I shall have a more fit occasion of speaking to them in the next Section to which I shall therefore refer them SECT III. I proceed to the sixth Chapter where if any where
1 Pet. 1. 1. Sometimes simply Simon †Matth. 17. 25. Marc. 14. 37. Luke 22. 31. Luke 24. 34. And Peter is expresly said to be his Surname ‖ Acts 10. 5 18 32. Acts 11. 13. And the reason why we do not find the Sons of Zebedee afterwards call'd by that name Boanerges may be because it was given in common to them both so that they could not thereby be distinguished the one from the other as Simon was from all the rest of the Apostles by his name Peter Again suppose Christ said here to Simon and to none other of the Apostles Vpon this Rock I will c. Can any singular Prerogative be hence concluded if at another time he said the same in effect to every one of them as he certainly did when he said to every one of them Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. * Matth. 28. 19. Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature †Mark. 16. 15. But I think I need ask no more Questions to expose the weakness of this Argument Which because the Discussor hath improv'd by some additional Strength I shall therefore consider what he says before I proceed with the Doctor There can be says he no other Reason assigned why Christ of all his Disciples chang'd only Peter 's Name he did not change it but only added another name to it for a name that did denote a ROCK but that by this Antonomastical I wish this hard word do not fright the Reader Appropriation of that Word to him he did destine him to be in a more peculiar excelling manner THE ROCK on whom he would build his Church ‖ St. Peter 's Supremacy faithfully discussed p. 121. What can there be no other Reason assigned when within less than four lines after he himself says I find that there be two especial reasons why Peter had this new Name one is for his firm Faith. He is the most lucky Man at contradicting himself that ever I met with And this other Reason he here assigns is that which is commonly given by the Fathers For to St Chrysostom whom he alledges for it I could add were it needful a great many more But the chiefest Reason says he and therefore not the only Reason why he was called so was because by that name Christ discovered his Intention of building his Church on him * Pag. 122. This is not the thing to be prov'd but that Christ hereby discover'd his Intention of building his Church more eminently upon him than on any other of the Apostles And this he fairly slips over and of all the Fathers viz. Cyril Origen Jerom Hilary Tertullian whom he here quotes not one of them hath so much as one Word that gives the least Intimation of it But what follows next is he tells us not undeserving of an Asterisk †Pag. 122. I am the more heartily glad on 't because we have met with nothing hitherto but what has deserved an Obelus The other Apostles are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is communicable as well to PETER as to any of the rest but he besides that Name common to him with the other had his new Name PETRVS appropriate to himself But what is it in this Observation that renders it so considerable 'T is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Foundation in general it may be of Wood Wool-Sacks Straw Hay or any such evaned matter and accordingly the Sees of the other Apostles have been detriumph'd stooping to the insulting Conqueror and yielding to the Pollutions of undermining Heresy But PETER signifies such a Foundation as is fix'd on an inexpugnable Rock c. ‖ Pag. 122. In which passage I observe several things which to use the Gentleman 's own Word 's are not undeserving of an Asterisk 1. We have here a Foundation of Straw or Hay A new sort of Foundation for a House which he has not borrowed from his Master Bellarmin let him therefore have the honour of the Invention 2. That all the other Apostles were Foundations of Wood Straw or Hay for he gives this as the Reason why their Sees have been detriumph'd stooping to the insulting Conqueror This methinks does not well agree with St. John's Description of the Christian Church whose Writings he yet grants are as Canonical as St. Peter's for he represents none of the Apostles as a Log of Wood or a Bundle of Hay but every one as a Stone as a precious Stone in the Foundation of the Wall of the New Jerusalem And if in respect of all other Christians as he grants the Apostles were equally Foundations then St. Peter himself was a Rock in respect of the Apostles only but a Foundation of Wood or Straw with respect to those other Christians that were built upon him 3. How can this be the Reason why the Sees of the other Apostles have been detriumph'd seeing they were not only founded severally upon their respective Apostles but all of them jointly upon Peter himself For tho the other Apostles were Foundations with respect to other Christians yet they were but the Superstructure as he would have it with respect to St. Peter who was the Rock upon which the Apostles themselves were built and by consequence all the Christian Churches that were built upon them But it may perhaps be said Tho Peter was indeed a Rock yet a Foundation of Straw being laid upon him this intermediate Foundation failing the Superstructure must fall too True. But may we not as wisely argue Though Christ was indeed a Rock yet Peter was but a Foundation of Straw laid upon him the primary Foundation since his See hath been so often detriumph'd yielding to the Pollutions of undermining Heresy witness Pope Liberius Honorius and other Heretical Popes And therefore if what he next asserts be true I see nothing to the contrary but Peter himself may be as evanid a Foundation as any of his Fellow-Apostles For 4. Peter he says signifies such a Foundation as is fixed upon an inexpugnable Rock Peter then is not now the Rock it self but only a Foundation fixed upon it And why may not a Foundation of Wood be so And yet 5. In the next words Peter is again transubstantiated into a Rock and such a Rock as is not only able to repel the foaming Surges of the aspiring Sea but can walk on the back of its towering Waves * Pag. 123. This is really an egregious surpassing Rock A Rock that can walk A Rock that can walk upon the back of Waves A Rock that can walk on the back of towring Waves And which makes the wonder still greater a Rock immovable an immovable Rock walking on the back of towring Waves If Peter be such a Rock I grant him to be the sole and only Rock of this kind And who can question but such a Rock is able to evacuate all the Plots of Hell's Divan and naufragate all the luxid
l. 2. c. 1. Hieron de Script Eccles in Jacobo was chosen by the Apostles yea by Peter himself as well as the rest as Clemens of Alexandria tells us * Clement Hypot l. 6. apud Euseb l. 2. c 1. Bishop of Jerusalem and preferr'd before them all And therefore after this we find them rank'd in this order James Peter and John James first as the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem Peter next as the first of the Apostles under James as he had been before the first under Christ and John next as the beloved Disciple The like order was observed in the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem For as it was the Custom in such Assemblies for him that was first to speak last so we accordingly find that James as President of that Council spake last summ'd up all that Peter had said before him and gave the final Determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore I judg or give Sentence †Acts 15. 19. Hence it was that the Synodical Decree was drawn up in the words of St. James hence also that when Peter was deliver'd out of Prison by an Angel he commanded the Disciples to shew it unto JAMES and the Brethren ‖ Acts 12. 17. And that when St. Paul came to Jerusalem he went the next day to James * Acts 21. Now though I think it may be convincingly proved that this James was James the Son of Alpheus yet I need not insist upon that because if it was not he but another of the second rank of the Apostles as some contend the Argument will be yet the stronger against St. Peter's Supremacy It is an Argument that the Fathers ascribed no such Authority to St. Peter in that what he produces from them for the Proof of it is nothing to the purpose as will appear by the recital of it When St. Paul says of himself Gal. 1. 18. that he went to Jerusalem on purpose to see PETER St. AMBROSE or the Author of the Commentaries c. gives this reason of it because he was PRIMVS INTER APOSTOLOS CVI DELEGAVERAT SALVATOR CVRAM ECCLESIARVM The FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES TO WHOM OUR SAVIOUR HAD COMMITTED THE CARE OF THE CHURCHES †Serm. of St. Pet. p. 26 27. What 's here that looks toward a Supremacy Is it that Peter is called the first among the Apostles The Vanity of this hath been already shew'd It is that the care of the Churches was commited to him This is no more than what was committed to every one of the Apostles Nay so far was this Author from asserting this that within six lines after the words quoted he speaks of St. Paul as Co-apostolus fellow-Apostle with St. Peter ‖ Veniens ergo ad eum hospitio receptus est et apud eum mansit dies quindecim quasi unanimus et Coapostolus Comment in Epist ad Galat c. 1. v. 18. And in his Comment upon the 7th ver of the next Chapter he hath these words He viz. Paul names PETER only and compares him to himself because he had received the Primacy to found the Church but he himself also was in like manner chosen that he might have the Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles Yet so as that Peter also might preach to the Gentiles if there was cause for it and Paul to the Jews for we find that both of them preached to both But yet full Authority is acknowledged to be given to Peter in preaching to the Jews and Paul 's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles * Petrum solum nominat et sibi comparat quia primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut primatum habeat in fundandis gentium Ecclesiis ita tamen ut Petrus Gentibus praedicaret si causa fuisset c. Is this spoken like one who took Peter for the Sovereign of the universal Church I desire the Reader to consult his Comment upon these Words When James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars c. And to avoid tediousness shall recite but one passage upon these Words But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the Face c. Who durst says he resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven BVT ANOTHER SVCH AS HE who in confidence of his Election knowing himself NOT VNEQVAL TO HIM might constantly blame what he had unadvisedly done †Nam quis corum auderet Petro primo Apostolo cui claves regni Coelorum Dominus dedit resistere nisi alius talis qui fiducia electionis suae sciens se non imparem constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat I leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether this Author took Peter to be Paul's Superiour As little to the purpose is it that St. Chrysostom reckons Peter the Prince of the Apostles as hath been already shew'd And less yet that he calls him their Mouth as might be largely shew'd were it not intolerably irksome to insist upon such Impertinencies And whereas St. Austin says that he represented the whole Church propter primatum Apostolatus by reason of the Primacy of the Apostleship St. Austin himself tells us in another place what Primacy he means Peter says he the FIRST IN ORDER of the Apostles ‖ Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus De Verb. Dom. in Evang. secund Matth. Serm. 13. I shall conclude this with the words of two late Authors of the Roman Communion The first acknowledges that the Primacy of St. Peter was that of Order or Place only the second that this Primacy gave him no Dominion over the other Apostles In every Society of Men saith a learned Sorbonist some Order ought to be kept and it is necessary that among many there be some first It is not therefore to be questioned but that in the Colledge of the Apostles some one was first but the Evangelists testify that this one was Peter who when they enumerate the Apostles not only place Peter the FIRST IN ORDER but affirm that he was first * Ellies Du Pin Dissert Hist 4. p. 311. And again The Question whether Peter had the FIRST PLACE among the Apostles is Historical and may be proved by the Testimony of Writers both of the same and of following Ages †Dissert 4. S. 2. p. 313. They say also says another Romanist that he is sometimes nam'd the first but if it had been always so this would not prove that he had Authority over the others as the Pope assumes it over Bishops Among the Presidents a Mortier the first hath no Power over the other nor amongst the Electors of the Empire the Elector of Mentz who hath the first place hath not any Authority over the other Electors and so in every Society the Primacy does not carry Dominion with it ‖ Ils
disent aussi qu'il est quelquefois nommé le premier mais s ' il ne l'est pas toûjours cela ne leur peut servir de rien Mais quand il l'auroit toûjours été cela ne prouveroit pas qu' il eût authorité sur les autres comme le Pape en prend sur les eveques c. Moyens surs et Honnestes pour la Conversion c. p. 14 15. But though it doth not appear by what the Doctor hath alledged That the Apostles after the coming down of the Holy Ghost understood Christ's words in the Roman Sense yet by many other Passages in the New Testament it is obvious that neither St. Peter himself St. Paul or the other Apostles had any such sense of them For if St. Paul had would he have affirm'd That he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostle †2 Cor. 12. 11. would he have rebuked Peter publickly before them all ‖ Gal. 2. 14. If the other Apostles had so understood them would they have taken upon them to send Peter to Samaria * Acts 8. 14. should not they rather have been sent by him If S. Peter himself had so understood them would he have done nothing Authoritatively and as their Prince but have acted all by the common consent of the Apostles as St. Chrysostom observes †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In Act. Apost Hom. 3. Having done with the Doctor I now return to the Discussor And 4. He next produces the Sayings of some Fathers to prove the Church more eminently built upon Peter than on any of the other Apostles ‖ St. Peter 's Supremacy c. p. 123. Such Sayings he imagins as may be a sufficient Collyrium to open our cieled Eyes and fetch off those Scales which have obstructed our visive Faculty * Pag. 125. Tho we make not the Sayings of the Fathers but the Holy Scripture the Rule of our Faith and if in this or any other point we should refuse to stand to their Judgment the Romanists cannot blame us without condemning themselves since no Men pay less respect to the Fathers than they when they find themselves pinch'd with their Authority yet so far are we from declining their Judgment in this or any other matter in dispute between us and the Church of Rome that we confidently appeal to them The first he produces is St. Jerom who on Isa 2. having compared them viz. the Apostles to Mountains says Super unum montium Christus fundat Ecclesiam et loquitur ad eum dicens Tues Petrus et super hanc Petram c. that is upon one of the Mountains Christ founds his Church and speaks to him saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church That Christ founded his Church on Peter is not the thing to be proved but that he more eminently founded it on him than on any other Apostle He will say perhaps this is imply'd How so Because in saying Christ founded his Church upon one of the Mountains he implicitly excludes all the rest If so then he excludes all the rest not from being more eminently but from being simply Foundations whereas he himself grants they were all Foundations in saying Peter was more eminently so But whosoever shall impartially read the Context he will conclude it was far from St. Jerom's meaning to exclude the other Apostles from what he here attributes to St. Peter for but six lines before he says This House viz. the Church is built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets who also themselves are Mountains as Imitators of Christ †Haec domus aedificata est super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum qui ipsi montes sunt quasi imitatores Christi But why then does he here say that Christ founds his Church upon one of them I answer the plain reason is this These Words being directed to Peter alone and none other St. Jerom was of Opinion that Christ in this place made him alone the Foundation of the Church but that elsewhere he made all the Apostles Foundations equally with him This he as expresly and plainly asserts as Words can do it in the place before-quoted out of his first Book against Jovinian c. 27. But what follows must needs confound all the Enemies of St. Peter and his Successors but such as have their face cased in triple Brass ‖ Pag. 123. A Case very much in fashion with them whose Head wears the Triple-Crown otherwise they could never so impudently outface the Truth as they daily do But what is this which must of necessity confound us That St. Jerom besides his owning him to be the Rock he calls his Cathedra at Rome likewise so in his Epistle to Damasus Ego Beatitudini tuae id est says he Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio I can perceive nothing in this Testimony so confounding as to need a Case of triple Brass to fence us against it For 1. Suppose that by the Rock Jerom meant S. Peter's Chair at Rome though Erasmus was of opinion that he meant thereby the Faith Peter professed * Non super Romam ut arbitror nam fieri potest ut Roma quoque degeneret sed super Fidem quam Petrus professus est yet he meant his Chair as then possessed by Damasus who had hitherto stood firm as a Rock against those Assaults of Heresy which had prevailed over the Eastern Church But he was far from thinking that all his Predecessors had done so or that it was necessary that all his Successors should do so as is sufficiently intimated in this very Epistle For when he says NOW in the West the Sun of Righteousness arises but in the East Lucifer which fell hath set his Throne above the Stars †Nunc in Occidente Sol Justitiae oritur in Oriente autem Lucifer ille qui ceciderat supra Sydera posuit Thronum suum That rising Now necessarily implies that he thought this Sun had either set or at least declined some time before And this he elsewhere plainly expresses when he tells us that Pope Liberius subscribed to Heresy ‖ Catalog Scriptor Ecclesiast in Fortunatianus tom 1. p. 297. For in case Liberius did not as some Men in contradiction to the clearest evidence would perswade us yet it is certain that St. Jerom thought he did and therefore as certain that he did not believe that the Chair of St. Peter was then the Rock upon which the Church was built unless he thought the Chair was more infallible than he that sate in it And as he believed that Heresy had got into the Chair formerly so he thought it not impossible but it might do so again yea that even Damasus himself might fall into the Arian Perfidiousness else why does he in this same Epistle so earnestly deprecate it * Jungatur cum Beatitudine
in it than they For instance the King promises to A in particular to give him a Captains place he afterwards promises the same Preferment to A B C D E F together A because the Promise was first made to him alone must either alone be made Captain and B C D E F excluded or if B C D E F be made Captains A because it was first promised to him must be made their Colonel or General These are good Consequences by the Discussor's Logick and therefore he spae more Truth than perhaps he was aware of when he said that Disputation was an Employment not only discordant to his Temper but surmounting his Abilities I have said enough to ruin the first Proposition Proposition II. The second is this that Peter received the Keys immediately from Christ but the other Apostles from or by him Peter says he did not receive them so as to retain them solely to himself but to communicate them to the other Apostles * Pag. 162. And again they then may be said to receive the Keys secondarily derivatively participatively by their associating adhering and communicating with him their Head †Ibid. The Falseness of which is so manifest that one would think none but a Man who had never read the New Testament could have the Face to offer it to those that have for can any thing be more evident than that these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. were spoken by Christ himself immediately to all the Apostles And when that Power was actually conferr'd that was here promised was it Peter or Christ that said to them As my Father hath sent me so send I you c. Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose Sins ye retain they are retained Was it not Christ that said to them immediately Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature But instead of multiplying Proofs from Scripture I shall rather send him to his Master Bellarmine whom in this Point he deserts That the Apostles received their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ and not from St. Peter he proves by four Arguments 1st By those Words of Christ As my Father hath sent me so send I you Which place says he the Fathers Chrysostom and Theophylact so expound that they plainly say that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of Christ yea that they received the very Office and Authority of Christ 2dly By the choice of Matthias into the place of the Traitor Judas For we read Acts 1. that Matthias was not chosen an Apostle by the Apostles but his Election being begg'd and obtain'd from God he was numbred among the Apostles But surely if all the Apostles had their Jurisdiction from Peter that ought most especially to have been shewn in Matthias 3dly It is proved from St. Paul who professedly teaches that he had his Authority and Jurisdiction from Christ and thence proves himself to be a true Apostle Gal. 1. And that he might shew that he received not his Authority from Peter or the other Apostles he saith When it pleased him who separated me from my Mother's Womb and call'd me by his Grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles immediately I conferr'd not with Flesh and Blood c. 4thly By evident Reason For the Apostles were made by Christ only as appears Luke 6. He call'd his Disciples and chose out of them twelve whom he named Apostles c. But that the Apostles had Jurisdiction is manifest by the Acts of St. Paul who 1 Cor. 5. excommunicates and 1 Cor. 6 7 11 13. and frequently elsewhere makes Laws and also because the Apostolical Dignity is the first and supreme Dignity in the Church as is manifest 1 Cor. 12. Ephes 4. c. I think Bellarmine hath said more than enough for the Confutation of the second Proposition ‖ De Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 23. I therefore proceed Proposition III. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was inferior and subordinate to a higher degree of it in St. Peter so says the Discussor I shall here only maintain the inequality inferiority and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles to an higher sublimer and compleater degree of it in Peter * Pag. 162. But that there was no such inferiority or subordination in the other Apostles as he vainly fancies will soon appear by consulting that place where the power of the Keys before promised was actually given to St. Peter The words by which it was conveyed are these As my Father sent me so send I you and he breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose soever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose soever Sins ye retain they are retained †John 20. 21 22 23. In which words we have these two things First That the power of the Keys is here given to the Apostle Secondly That this Power is here given equally to Peter and the other Apostles that is in as high a degree to the other Apostles as it was promised to Peter Matth. 16. 19. First That the power of the Keys is here given all those who own the Doctrine Authority of the Church of Rome and by consequence the Discussor himself will be forced to grant 1. Because this is expresly taught by the Fathers 2. Because it is also taught by the Roman Catechism and the Council of Trent 1. This is no new Conceit of Hereticks but it is expresly taught by the Fathers whose unanimous Judgment in the interpreting of Scripture every Priest of the Church of Rome as I said before is by solemn Oath obliged to follow If that which is said says Origen I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven be common why not all the rest BUT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN OUR SAVIOUR GIVING THE HOLY GHOST BY BREATHING SAYS RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST ‖ Tractat. 1. in Matth. The Lord says Cyprian speaks to Peter I say unto thee And altho to all the Apostles after his Resurrection he gives equal Power and says AS MY FATHER SENT ME SO SEND I YOU * De Unitat. Eccles All the Apostles says Gaudentius upon Christ's Resurrection receive the Keys in Peter nay rather they receive with Peter from our Lord himself the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom when he saith to them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. †Postea vero pro commisso scelere jam damnato Juda omnes Apostoli Christo surgente in Petro claves accipiunt Quinimo cum Petro caelestis regni claves ab ipso Domino accipiunt quando ait illis Accipite Spiritum sanctum c. Tract quem prima die ordinat quorund Civ Notarii accep That ye may know says Austin that the Church received the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven hear in another place what the Lord says to all his
Name * Nam si Paulo Apostolo satis est nihil scire nisi Christum Jesum hunc crucifixum quid amplius mihi desiderandum est seire quam Christum In uno enim hoc nomine Divinitatis Incarnationis expressio fides passionis est Et ideo licet caeteri Apostoli sciant Petrus tamen respondet prae caeteris Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi Complexus est itaque omnia qui naturam nomen expressit in quo summa virtutum est Ambros Comment l. 6. in Evang Luc. c. 9. col 116. Edit Paris 1614. Can any thing be more plain than 〈◊〉 what St. Ambrose here saith the other Apostles knew was what was expressed in the Name Christ viz. his Divinity and Incarnation And what St. Peter answer'd when he said Thou art Christ the Son of the living God in which is contain'd both his Name and his Nature So far was St. Jerom from thinking the Apostles ignorant of it that he thought the rude Sea-men knew his Divinity otherwise he spake absurdly in opposing their Confession to that of Arius * Ad unum signum tranquillitate maris reddita quae post nimias procellas interdum casu fieri solet Nautae atque vectores vere filium Dei confitentur Arius in Ecclesia pradicat Creaturam Hieron Comment l. 2. in Matth. c. 15. v. 33. Edit Bas 1553. St. Chrysostom says When Peter said AND WE HAVE BELIEVED Christ excepts Judas out of the number of Believers †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In cap. 7. Evang. Johan Hom. 47. thereby plainly signifying that all of them save Judas believed Christ to be the Son of the Living God. The same says Cyril of Alexandria Add to these all those Fathers who tell us that Peter answered not for himself only but for all the Apostles which as Maldonate confesses ‖ Comment in Matth. cap. 16. ver 16. was the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Jerom and St. Austin and Barradius cites for it St. Augustin Ambrose Jerom Anselm and St. Thomas ‖ Comment in Concord hist Evangelic tom 2. l. 10. c. 22. Yea the Discussor himself tells us that St. Jerom acknowledges that Peter did profess this Truth ex persona omnium in the person of them all That St. Cyprian in his 55th Epistle declares that Peter answered for all of them That St. Austin fancies he only answered to preserve Vnity unus pro multis dedit responsum unitas in multis c. * Pag. 85. And in confessing this does he not fairly pull down with one hand what he labours to build up with the other For what the reason was why he answered for all is not now the question it suffices that he did so since if he did no Man can reasonably deny but that he knew what he answered was the Belief of them all But this Opinion saith the Discussor reflecting upon Dr. Barrow and Dr. Cave seemed to me very thin and silly The reason why it seemed so to him follows viz. that Christ should propound a Question to a dozen Persons which he knew any of them could solve and make honourable Promises only to him that should speak first seem'd to me says he a childish Fancy and beneath the Conceptions of a Doctor He here forgot his good Friend Maldonate who was of the same silly Opinion But is it indeed silly to think that Christ should propound a Question to a dozen which he knew any one of them could answer That Question which just before this he propounded to the same dozen Whom do Men say that I the Son of Man am did he not know that every one of them could answer it and so indeed they all did or at least so many of them as pleased That other Question propounded by Christ to all the twelve sometime before this Will ye also go back did he not know that every one of them could answer it so far as it concern'd himself And was not one Answer returned to it by St. Peter in the Name of them all as the Discussor himself grants But that Christ should make honourable Promises only to him that should speak first seem'd to him a childish Fancy But if we may believe St. Ambrose these honourable Promises were not made to him only for what is said to Peter says he is said to the Apostles ‖ Denique audi dicentem Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum quodcunque ligaveris super Terram erit ligatum in Caelo quodcunque solveris Quod Petro dicitur Apostolis dicitur Enarratio in Psal 38. Or if the Promises were here made to him only the same were afterward made and the Reward promised was given to all the Apostles The Lord saith to Peter saith St. Cyprian Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And I will give thee the Keys And although after his Resurrection he gives equal Power to all his Apostles * Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi inquit quia tu es Petrus super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae Inferorum non vincent eam Et tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat sicut misit me Pater c. Cypr. de Unitat. Ecclesiae p. 254. Edit Paris Hath Peter received those Keys says St. Austin and hath not Paul received them hath Peter received them and hath not John and James received them and the rest of the Apostles †Nunquid istas claves Petrus accepit Paulus non accepit Petrus accepit Johannes Jacobus non accepit caeteri Apostoli August Serm. 30. de Diversis And that the Promises were made to the other Apostles as well as to Peter is not only the Opinion of the ancient Church as I shall afterward more fully shew but of many great Men of the Church of Rome ‖ Ellies du pin de antiq Eccles disciplina dissertat 4. p. 307. Simon vigorii ad respons Synodal Concil Basil Comment c. 6. de Monarch p. 10 11 12 c. But since the Doctor 's Opinion seem'd to him a childish Fancy let us see what Man-like Reasons he hath produc'd for the contrary Peter is said to answer for the rest not as if he spake or knew their Opinion on this Point Now what are his Reasons for this For the Question Pag. 87. was asked by our Saviour on a sudden and it does no where appear that the Apostles had any precedaneous Conference or Consultation about it Are not these wise Reasons for a Man to give who had just before censured the Doctor 's Opinion as silly Grant the Question was sudden did the Suddenness of it render Peter ignorant of what he knew as I have already shew'd before the Question was asked Or needed he to consult the Apostles for
that Answer which he had sometime before upon occasion of another Question given in their Name John 6. 69. But what then was the true Reason why Peter is said to answer this Question for the rest Because his Answer thereto was Orthodox they were obliged to own and embrace it as the common Belief of the Church * Ibid. Wiser yet Is a Man said to answer for all those who are obliged to own his Answer because it is Orthodox whether they indeed own it or not What if the other Apostles had been Heterodox and disown'd this Answer Could he then have been said to have answer'd for them If not then the reason why he is said to have answered for them was not because his Answer was Orthodox But if he could then behold here a compendious way of reconciling all Hereticks to the Church of Rome It is but putting one Romanist in the Head of them and then proposing the Questions in Dispute for the Romanist returning an Orthodox Answer he speaks for them all and so without any more ado they are all good Catholicks Had this Expedient been proposed a little sooner it might have saved the Bishop of Meaux and the Representer a great deal of needless pains He next produces Jansenius and Abulensis to vouch for him but as his manner is misrepresents them both Jansenius expresly says that Peter as the Mouth of the Apostles answered for them all †Tanquam o s Apostolorum pro omnibus responder dicens tu es c. Comment in Concord Evangel cap. 67. And again Hence it appears that he answered for all which Chrysostom also plainly asserts ‖ Hinc enim apparet ipsum pro omnibus respondisse quod aperte etiam Chrysostomus asserit c. ibid. And accordingly he is quoted by Cornelius a Lapide Barradius and others for this Opinion In answer to a Question he proposes we find indeed afterwards the Words recited by the Discussor The Question is this Why Christ now pronounced Peter alone blessed when all the Apostles or almost all seem to have had the same Faith and when he seemed to have answer'd in the Name of them all To which he returns this Answer Peter IF WE SPEAK PROPERLY did not answer for them all as he had done John 6. when his Answer was not so much approv'd as corrected by Christ but professed his Faith for himself as one that could not know the Faith of others because he could not search the Secrets of the Heart c. * Ex quibus etiam pater quid ad secundam Questionem Principalem sit respondendum nimirum Petrum si proprie loquatur non respondisse pro omnibus c. ibid. If this seems to contradict what he says before I leave it to the Discussor to reconcile him to himself In the other Passage of Jansenius he leaves out the most material part he thus recites it Cum Chrysostomus alii eum vocant Os nomine omnium respondisse non sit accipiendum quasi responderit id quod omnes sentirent sed quia solus responderit quod omnibus respondendum fuisset †pag. 88. Whereas Jansenius his Words are these Quod autem Chrysostomus alii nonnunquam dicant Petrum fuisse Os Apostolorum omnium nomine respondisse non sic accipiendum quasi id responderit quod omnes sentirent sed quia CVM OMNES INTERROGATI ESSENT ipse solus responderit QVOD OMNES SECVM AVT PENE OMNES SENTIRE PVTABAT quod omnibus respondendum fuisset Who may not now see that the Words he hath left out do plainly contradict that for the Proof of which he brought the rest He yet more grosly abuses Tostatus For he says not absolutely pro se solo respondit but delivers it as a matter doubtful For as much says he as it does not appear determinately whether Peter answered in the name of all IT SEEMS thence more agreeable to the letter that Peter answer'd for himself alone †De secundo dicendum quod determinate non constat an nomine omnium Petrus responderit unde videtur magis convenire literae quòd Petrus pro se solo responderit In Matth. cap. 16. Quaest 57. For which he gives four reasons which may be all easily confuted And a little after IT SEEMS this is to be said that Peter now answered for himself alone ‖ Dicendum videtur quod Petrus pro se solo nunc respondet ibid. But in case he answer'd for himself only as Tostatus thought yet he peremptorily determin'd that he said no more than what they all believ'd and that every one of them would have said the same had every one answered singly for himself as shall presently more fully appear It follows * Pag. 88. If the other Apostles did equally whether equally or unequally is not now the Question know it with Peter and he only spake their Sense for them I shall with Maldonat ask this Question What Question Si pro omnibus Petrus loquebatur cur non omnibus dictum Beati estis Cur non omnibus mutata nomina cur non omnibus dictum Vobis dabo c. Is all this but one Question Another Man would have made it three without the c. and whosoever consults Maldonat will find that that contains one if not two more viz. Cum omnes Christus interrogasset cur non omnes responderunt praesertim cum paulo ante interrogante eo quem se homines esse dicerent non solus Petrus sed omnes aut quicunque voluerunt responderint †Maldonat Comment in Matth. 16. Col. 350. Though the Questions are many yet a few words may suffice in answer to them all Quest 1. Why was it not said to them all Ye are blessed Answ Because Peter alone had spoken for them all therefore to him alone Christ's Reply is directed But that it was applicable to them all is manifest because the reason of it for Flesh and Blood hath not revealed it unto thee agreed to them all equally as I shall presently shew Quest 2. Why were not all their Names changed Answ Peter's Name was not now changed but long before and therefore this Question stands upon a false Foundation He did not as St. Austin tells us then receive this Name when Christ said to him Thou art Peter but then rather when it was said to him thou shall be call'd Cephas which is interpreted Peter c. ‖ De Consensu Evangelist ib. 2. cap. 17. Or if you please I will answer it by another Question Whether his Name was changed to Peter because the other Apostles did not know equally with him That Christ was the Son of the living God Quest 3. Why was it not said to them all I WILL GIVE YOU THE KEYS Answ This hath been answered already Quest 4. Since Christ put the Question to them all why did they not all answer it Especially considering that a little
the Apostles says Barradius because he answered first what they would have answered * Dicitur tamen pro caeteris Apostolis respondisse quia quod illi fuerant responsuri respondet primus Comment in Concord Hist Evangel Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 22. Peter saith Tirinus as he was first constituted by Christ in the College of the Apostles so surmounting the rest in Dignity and Zeal nothing doubting as well IN THE NAME OF THE REST as in his own Name as the MOVTH OF THEM ALL He presently most plainly and boldly answered THOV ART CHRIST c. †In Matth. 16. v. 16. What shall we say if Bellarmine himself asserts that the other Apostles knew this Mystery as well as Peter So he plainly does For in answer to an Objection of Illyricus he says thus The Faith or Confession viz. of Peter may be considered two ways either absolutely in it self or with relation to Peter The Adversaries seem to resolve his Faith to be the Foundation of the Church the first way but they are certainly deceived for if it were so the Lord would not have said Vpon this Rock I WILL BVILD but I DO BVILD or I HAVE BVILT my Church For many had already believed that he was the Son of the living God as the ancient Prophets the blessed Virgin Simeon Zacharias John the Baptist THE APOSTLES AND OTHER DISCIPLES ‖ Respondeo fidem five confessionem duobus modis posse considerari uno modo absolute secundum se ac sine relatione ad Personam Petri altero modo cum relatione ad Petrum c. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 10. I know Bellarmine afterwards makes it one of Peter's Prerogatives that he alone knew this Mystery by a peculiar Revelation * De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 19. But who can help it if he contradicts himself But what shall we say if the Discussor himself grant what he so stoutly denies viz. That the rest of the Apopostles knew Christ's Divinity This I think he does in going about to prove that they did not equally know it with Peter †Pag. 88. For to say that they did not equally know it plainly implies that they indeed knew it It is also observable how wisely he says Now if the other Apostles did equally know it with Peter and he only spake their Sense for them As if he could not speak their Sense unless they not only knew it but equally knew it with him And as if to speak their Sense were the same thing as to answer for them For though he could not answer for them unless he spake their Sense yet he might speak their Sense though he did not answer for them as Tostatus Maldonat Salmeron Barradius c. have determined His distinction of nominal and natural Filiation ‖ Pag. 90. hath been already considered and also his Quotations out of S. Ambrose Of the rest of the Fathers whom he finds acknowledging Peter first to know and first to confess Christ's Divinity * Pag. 91. there is not one of them except St. Hilary who says That he first knew it but only that he first confess'd or publish'd it and in saying that he first confess'd it they imply that the other Apostles knew it I have said enough yea too much to expose the vanity of this first Conceit The prime foundation therefore being raz'd the other which depends upon it falls of it self However I shall bestow a few Lines upon it that the Discussor may not pretend that he is not answered SECT II. The second ground he lays of St. Peter's Supremacy is That he knew Christ's Divinity by a special Revelation For tho Peter 's Confession did exceed that of others yet this says he was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honour but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolick Society illuminating him with a particular Revelation c. †Pag. 80. And again The Father and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles and honour him particularly with a Revelation ‖ Pag. 81. And again I will never be induc'd to believe otherwise than that St. Peter 's Revelation did discover to him more than either what he or they knew before otherwise it had been of no import * Pag. 90. And so again and again as if he thought he could make up what was wanting in proof by the frequent and impertinent repetition of it I know not any that would induce him to believe otherwise than that God revealed this to St. Peter that this Revelation discovered to him more than what he knew before that all the forces of Man's Wit all human Wisdom Industry and Sagacity could never have arrived to it without a Revelation Nothing of this is the matter in dispute but whether this Revelation was peculiar to Peter And 1. I have already shewed that it was not so by proving that his fellow-Apostles knew the same thing and by consequence had the Revelation of it as well as he And whereas he says we may find the Fathers assert this by the following Quotations Therefore 2. I have carefully read over all those Quotations and cannot find that so much as one of the Fathers quoted assert it They say indeed that Peter had it by Divine Revelation which is no more than our Saviour plainly tells us But they do not say that he only had this Revelation or use any such Words as exclude the other Apostles I shall instance in two or three of his Quotations that the Reader may see how pertinent they are Peter was declared blessed having spoken the things of God †Pag. 80. Is not this much to the Purpose Again he pronounces Peter blessed because he received his Knowledg from the Divine Grace And is not this every-whit as much Once more As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth who was thought worthy to be proclaim'd blessed because the Father revealed it to him But is it said the Father revealed it to none but him The Discussor perhaps may say this is imply'd though not expressed How so because they mention Peter only The reason of that is because our Saviour directed his reply to Peter only and there was good reason why he should do so though he meant it to the whole Company because Peter alone had return'd the Answer to his Question but as he answer'd not for his single self but for them all so Christ's return to him must be extended to all For since they all knew it as has been prov'd and since they could no other way attain to this Knowledg than by Revelation it might therefore as truly be said to James and John Blessed art thou James and blessed art thou John for Flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven And 3. This is no more than what Origen plainly asserts If this saying I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of
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
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
proofs are I fear we shall find nothing of the solidity of the Rock in them 1. The Doctor says That this is every where affirm'd by the same holy Doctor St. Jerom giving him the Titles of PRINCE CHIEF HEAD and GREATEST OF THE APOSTLES I grant that St. Jerom gives him these Titles but absolutely deny that he meant thereby that Christ built his Church more eminently upon him that is as he interprets it gave him a Preeminence of Power over the other Apostles The Reasons of my denial are these 1. Because in that very place where he says Peter was constituted the Head he also says What is said of Peter Matth. 16. 17 18. is in another Text affirm'd of them all and that the strength of the Church is establish'd upon them EQVALLY * Ar dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni Caelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto Schismatis tollatur occasio Advers Jovinian l. 1. c. 27. p. 35. Ed. Basil 1553. And if equally upon all then not more eminently upon St. Peter than the rest And though he gives the first place to Peter by Reason of his Age †Aetati delatum est quia Petrus senior erat ibid. Yet he tells us that he was only an Apostle and by Consequence had no Jurisdiction over the rest and that St. John the youngest was upon several accounts to be preferred before him PETER saith he was an Apostle and JOHN was an Apostle but PETER was an APOSTLE ONLY John was AN APOSTLE AND AN EVANGELIST AND A PROPHET ‖ Petrus Apostolus est et Johannes Apostolus maritus et virgo sed Petrus Apostolus tantum Johannes et Apostolus et Evangelista et Propheta ibid. 2. Because St. Jerom so explains his meaning when he calls him the Prince of the Apostles as to exclude all pretence to Authority over them For as Plato saith he was the Prince of the Philosophers so Peter was of the Apostles * Quid Platoni et Petro Ut ille enim Princeps Philosophorum ita hic Apostolorum fuit super quem Ecclesia Domini stabili mole fundata est Advers Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. Tom. 2. p. 265. Now I appeal to the Doctor whether Plato had Dominion over the rest of the Philosophers In such a large sense did St. Jerom and the rest of the Fathers use the Title Prince so as to denote any sort of Eminency And the utmost he could mean by it was no more than this that Peter was the first of the Apostles Princeps and Primus in ancient Authors being Words of the same Signification as many learned Men have shew'd †Casaub Exercit 15. Diatrib 12. p. 271 272. Edit Franc. 1615. Forbes Instruct Historico-Theolog l. 15. c. 1. Suiceri Thesaur Ecclesiast in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This the Discussor will be forc'd to grant who once and again renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of the Apostles by the Prince of the Apostles ‖ Pag. 112. 114. To the same sense are the other Titles chief and greatest of the Apostles to be understood and therefore it is needless to say any thing of them distinctly 2. But St. Paul being to prove that Christ our Lord transcended all the Quires of Angels in the EXCELLENCY OF HIS NATVRE thought it a convincing Argument to alledge that he had obtained a more EXCELLENT NAME THAN THEY forasmuch as our Lord had said to HIM and to none of THEM in the second Psalm THOV ART MY SON THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE And those must think this Argument of St. PAVL to be of no force who when they hear our Saviour say to SIMON THE SON of Jonas and to none other of the Apostles THOV ART PETER AND VPON THIS ROCK I WILL BVILD MY CHVRCH can think that some SINGVLAR PREROGATIVE was not meant by it to be communicated to him in which he should EXCEL the rest of his Brethren * Serm. of St. Peter pag. 23. Would then the Doctor prove that Peter transcends all Orders of Men in the excellency of his Nature as Christ did all the Quires of Angels No but in some singular Prerogative But if the Apostle concluded from the excellency of Christ's Name the transcendent excellency of his Nature I cannot apprehend such is my dulness how by virtue of the Apostle's reasoning from the Excellency of Peter's Name follows a singular Prerogative But be it so that a singular Prerogative is hereby meant to Peter though it does not follow from the Apostle's Argument must it be this of universal Headship Why not some other of those twenty eight Prerogatives enumerated by Bellarmine Particularly why not the 13th that he first preach'd to the Jews after the Descent of the holy Ghost and by that first Sermon converted 3000 †De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 22. Or why not the 14th that he wrought the first Miracle for the Confirmation of the Christian Faith ‖ Ibid. Or why not the 17th that he first preached to the Gentiles * Ibid. Especially considering that as preparatory to this he had that Vision in which it was said to him Arise Peter kill and eat which seems to some Men a plain Proof of his Headship For it being the Property of the Head to eat and by eating to transmit the meat to the Stomach hereby is signified that Peter AS HEAD OF THE CHVRCH was to convert Infidels and make them Members of the Church ‖ Nam capitis est manducare per manducationem trajicere cibum in stomachum et illum sibi incorporare Significatur enim hac metaphora Petro convenire ut ipse tanquam Caput Eccesiae Infideles convertat et efficiat membra Eeclesiae De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 22. And why must Thou art Peter c. denote some Prerogative to be communicated Why not some Excellency already communicated Why must Rock be referred to Dominion and not rather to some inherent Property of a Rock as it always is when in the Scripture and by the Fathers it is used in a metaphorical sense ‖ Is Casaub Exercit. 15. Diatrib 13. p. 291 292. And yet after all I see no more reason to conclude that any singular Prerogative was hereby meant to be communicated to Peter than to James and John when our Lord surnam'd them and no other of the Apostles BOANERGES If it be said as I know it is that this was to them a surname only I answer so was the name Peter a name only superadded to his former Simon for he ever retain'd that name and therefore frequently after this is called sometimes Simon Peter * John 13. 6 9 24. John 18. 10 15 25. John 20. 2 6. John 21. 2 3 7 11 15.
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
find in the story of Cornelius Acts 10. He is called the Rock because he first laid the Foundations of Faith among the Gentiles ‖ Petra enim dicitur eo quod primus in nationibus fidei fundamenta posuerit says an antient Author in a Homily father'd on St. Ambrose In the remainder of this Chapter which is spent in answering several Objections made by his Adversary I find nothing but what either needs no answer or what hath been already answered Though I confess there are many things that deserve an Asterisk particularly the first part of his Answer to this Question What Inconvenience would arise from expounding this Rock to be Christ To this saith he I answer Though I grant Christ to be called a Rock yet it is very irrational to interpret the word ROCK of Christ wheresoever you find it express'd in Scripture our Saviour being not really a Rock but only call'd so by a metaphorical locution * Pag. 129. This he says is observed by St. Austin A notable Observation CHAP. III. I Think I have said enough to satisfy every impartial considering Reader that St. Peter's Supremacy is not founded upon this Rock and therefore must fall to the Ground unless some other Foundation be found to support it I proceed therefore to the other Promise here made And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth c. upon which they also tell us this vast Fabrick is solidly superstructed Now the whole of their Discourse from hence that is pertinent to the present Question may be reduc'd to these four Propositions 1. That this Promise of the Keys was made to Peter alone II. That he alone immediately receiv'd them and the other Apostles derivatively from him III. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was inferior and subordinate to a higher Degree of it in St. Peter IV. That by the Keys thus promised to and received by St. Peter is meant the supreme Power of governing the Church Proposition I. This Promise saith Dr. G. our Saviour made to St. Peter and to him alone †Serm of St. Peter p. 28. And you see saith the Discussor Christ addresses his Reply to Peter only the Words Tu and Tibi shutting out all Partnership ‖ St. Peter 's Supremacy p. 18. To which it will be sufficient to return these two things 1. Suppose the Reply addressed to Peter only and the Promise here made to him alone doth it hence follow that Christ intended to give the thing promised to none else Had Christ said to Peter to thee only will I give the Keys this would have followed but it no way follows from Christ's saying only to him I will give thee the Keys From the Promise made to him in particular it only follows that he in particular should have them not that none others should have them besides him 2. Nothing can be more plain than that at another time Christ made the same Promise to all the Apostles indefinitely Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven ‖ Matth. 18. 18. But says the Doctor however we read that the Power of binding and loosing which is an Effect of the Keys was promised to all the Apostles in common Matth. 18. 18. yet it was not till after the Keys had been promised to Peter Matth. 16. 19 * Pag. 29. What then does before or after make any Difference in the Promise it self If the King promise to day a Commission to one Man in particular and promise to morrow the same Commission to him and ten more together with him hath that one any Power given him over the other ten by having his Commission first promised him But it is not any where read in Scripture that the KEYS THEMSELVES the proper TOKEN and BADGE of the supreme Stewardship over the Church were promised to the rest but to PETER alone But doth not the Power suppose the Badge Or if it doth not is there any need of it Since it is not the Badge but the Office alone that we are concerned for †See Dr. Hammond 's Answ to Schism disarm'd Sect. 7. n. 12 13 14. If it be granted that all the rest have equal Power with Peter let Peter by my consent have the sole Honour of carrying the Keys And yet doth he not say just before That the Power of binding and loosing which is an effect of the Keys is promised to all the Apostles And if so then surely the Keys themselves since the effect ever presupposes the Cause But the truth is as loosing and binding are the effect of the Keys so the Power of loosing and binding are the Keys themselves The Church which is founded in Christ saith St. Austin received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Peter that is the Power of binding and loosing Sins ‖ Ecclesia ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab eo regni Caelorum accepit id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In Evang. Johannis Tractat 124. This is the very definition your Schoolmen give of them The Power of binding and loosing says Aquinas is call'd the Key * Clavis dicitur potestas ligandi solvendi Aquin. suppl Qu. 17. Art. 2. The spiritual Key says Biel is thus described It is the Power of judging that is of loosing and binding by which an Ecclesiastical Judg ought to receive those that are worthy and exclude those that are unworthy from the Kingdom of God †Sic describitur clavis spiritualis est potestas judicandi id est solvendi ligandi c. Eiel in quartum Sentent Dist 18. Qu. 1. And therefere to suppose that Christ promises the power of binding and loosing and not the Keys is to suppose a contradiction This therefore is not to argue like Dr. G. though it very well becomes the Discussor who also talks at the same rate It cannot says he be prov'd out of the Scripture that the Keys in EXPRESS WORDS were given to any but to him viz. Peter ‖ Peter's Supremacy p. 160. in express words It may then it seems be proved by Consequence and is not that as well But unless as he goes on you can shew me some place in the New Testament where our Saviour saith to his Disciples JOYNTLY IWILL GIVE YOV THE KEYS * The Discussor's word are conjunctim Vobis dabo claves or to any of them in particular I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS †His words are particulatim tibi dabo claves he hath the best Plea and Title to them The best Plea this is poor and sneaking a plain giving up the cause for should he have the best Plea that doth not hinder but they may have a good Plea since his Title is no way inconsistent with theirs it
being such a Priviledg as might be equally enjoy'd by them all And yet I cannot conceive how his Title can be better than theirs though it be no where said to them jointly I will give you the Keys if that be said to them jointly which necessarily imports the same thing as it is To these Texts Mat. 18. 18. Joh. 20. 21. quoted by his Adversary to prove the other Apostles had the Keys he gives this Answer That it cannot clearly be inferred from either of these Places they had them the word KEYS being not so much as mentioned there ‖ Ibid. Not clearly inferred it 's granted then that it may be truly inferred tho not clearly And why not clearly because the word KEYS is not mentioned there Very wisely If what the word Keys imports be clearly mentioned in those places may it not be as clearly inferr'd as if the word Keys were it self mention'd and that it is so as it is manifest by what hath been already said so it is the common Opinion of the Fathers * Tertul. de pudicitia c. 21. Cypr. Epist 23. ad Jubaian et de Unitat. Eccles Hilary l. 6. de Trin. col 74. Hieron l. 1. advers Jovinian August Serm. 108. de divers Bed. Hom. de Sanct. Petro. and of many learn'd Men of the Church of Rome †Barlaam de Primat Papae l. 2. Pet. de Alliaco Qu. in suis Vesp n. 20. Ejusd lib. de Eccles et Cardinal Authoritate parte 1. c. 1. Tractat. Cancell Parisiens de Potestat Eccl. et Orig. Juris Consid 5. Richer de Ecclesiast et Polit. Potest n. 2. et 6. and is no more than is taught by the Roman Catechism in citing Mat. 18. 18. Joh. 20. 23. together with Mat. 16. 19. to prove that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the Church ‖ Catechis Rom. parte 1. de decimo Symb. Artic. S. 4. all which for brevities sake I remit the Reader to in the Margin and shall transcribe no more than the words of the Sorbon Doctor before quoted This Power saith he of the Keys which Christ promises here to Peter he afterwards in the very same words promises to all the Apostles Mat. 18. 18. and after that gives it to them all Mat. 28. John 20. They are very much mistaken who think the Keys were given to Peter alone but the Antients were not of this Opinion who with unanimous Consent teach that these Keys were in the Person of Peter given to the whole Church * Hanc enim potestatemclavium quam Christus hic Petro promittit iisdem deinde verbis omnibus omnino Apostolis promittit Matth. 18. deinceps cunctis largitur Matth. 28. Johan 20. Illi igitur oppido falluntur qui soli Petro datas claves esse autumant At non ita Antiqui qui unanimo consensu tradunt claves istas in persona Petri totae Ecclesiae datas Du Pin dissertat 4. c. 1. p. 307 308. But he says If it be granted that the Apostles had the Keys by virtue of these places of Scripture yet it doth not follow they had them in the same sense and amplitude that Peter had †Pag. 160 161. Doth it follow that they had them not in the same sense and amplitude But this is not now the Question but whether they had them and that they had them by virtue of these Texts every Roman Priest will be forced to grant or to break that solemn Oath he hath taken to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers ‖ Bulla Pii 4ti super forma Juramenti To his Question If either or both these Places were equivalent to dabo tibi Claves what reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular and general Promise of them * Pag. 161. If by a particular Promise he means a Promise to St. Peter in particular and by a general Promise the same Promise made to him and all the Apostles together with him S. Cyprian shall return the Answer He first gave the Keys to Peter alone to manifest that Unity he would have in his Church and to make him the Original and Pattern of it †Nam Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in Caelis c. Epist 73. ad Jubaian Or if St. Cyprian's Authority be thought too little let him take it from Pope Leo I. That is not in vain commended to one that is intimated to all to Peter therefore singly this is committed because Peter's Pattern is proposed to all the Governours of the Church ‖ Transivit quidem in Apostolos alios vis istius potestatis sed non frustra uni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur Petro ergo singulariter hoc creditur quia cunctis Ecclesiae Rectoribus Petri forma proponitur Our Saviour therefore having served this design in making the Promise first to Peter singly he afterward makes the same Promise to them all If he shall ask why he promised them to Peter again when he promised them to all It is as wise a Question as if he should ask why a Universal includes each Particular contained under it But that which follows next is most admirable that whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts they being spoken conjointly to the twelve Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any he need not fear but he is so far in the right but having over and above his Portion in this joint Promise a particular one apart to himself in which the rest were immediately no Sharers it cannot be disproved but by virtue of this singular separate Promise made to him personally in the Presence of the rest that he had the Keys either alone or if the Power of the Keys was afterwards given to the rest that he was supreme in it If by this particular this singular Promise this Promise made to him personally he mean a Promise of any particular or singular Power besides that which was promised to the rest he supposes that which he should first have proved and which I have already confuted If he means that Promise made to Peter particularly and singly which was afterwards made to all the Apostles at what an absurd rate does he talk A Promise is made to twelve jointly the very same Promise neither more nor less was before made to one of these twelve apart therefore this one hath either himself alone that which is promised to all the twelve or if the rest have it he hath it in a higher Degree than they Or thus If a Promise be first made to one Man singly and the same Promise be afterwards made to this one and many more together the making the Promise to him first singly either excludes all the rest from any share in it or gives him a greater share
Apostles RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST TO WHOMSOEVER YE REMIT SINS THEY ARE REMITTED AND WHOSOEVER'S SINS YE RETAIN THEY ARE RETAINED ‖ Serm. 108. de Divers And Theophylact in his Comment on Matth. 16. 19. Tho it was said to Peter only I will give thee the Keys yet it was afterwards given to all the Apostles when Christ said to them WHOSE SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED c. Instead of producing more of the Fathers I challenge the Discussor to produce one ancient Author who hath said the contrary 2. But if the Fathers should now lose their Authority as they are wont to do with the Romanists whensoever they contradict their new Faith yet unless he put on his triple case he will not be able to resist that which follows passing over many private Authors as they commonly call them though licensed by the highest publick Authority I shall produce only the Roman Catechism composed by the order of the Council of Trent and the Council of Trent it self The Roman Catechism speaking of the Minister of the Sacrament of Penance says He must have not only the Power of Order but of Jurisdiction who ought to perform this Office. But those words of our Lord in St. John afford us an illustrious Testimony of this Ministry WHOSE SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED TO THEM AND WHOSE SIN YE RFTAIN THEY ARE RETAINED * De Paenit Sacramento c. 5. S. 55. And the Council of Trent declares that all those Opinions are false and Strangers from the Truth of the Gospel which perniciously extend to other Men besides Bishops and Priests the Ministry of the KEYS thinking those words of our Lord WHATSOEVER YE BIND ON EARTH And WHOSESOEVER SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED TO THEM AND WHOSESOEVER SINSYE RETAIN THEY ARE RETAINED to be spoken indiffently to all the faithful c. †Sess 14. de Sacram. Paenit c. 6. By which it is plain that the Trent Fathers took remitting and retaining in St. John to signify the same thing with loosing and binding in St. Matthew Secondly This Power is here given equally to St. Peter and the other Apostles or in as high a degree to the other Apostles as it is to Peter This will be cleared from First The Words themselves Secondly The Judgment of the Fathers upon them Thirdly The Concessions of many Learned Men of the Church of Rome First From the Words themselves no part of which is addressed to Peter alone or to Peter more especially than to any of the rest but to all of them jointly without any note of Difference between them Had our Saviour been of the Discussor's Mind he would have spoken to this Effect As my Father hath sent me so send I thee Peter and as I send thee so do thou send them Whosesoever sins thou remittest they are remitted and whosesoever sins they remit in Subordination to thee as their Prince they are remitted Whereas we see no such Distinction made but as my Father sent me so send I you without any Preference of Peter before the meanest of them And accordingly as an excellent Divine of our own Church observes when the Holy Ghost descended it was imparted to each of them alike without any mark of Distinction For we read not of one Flame that crowned the Head of St. Peter greater and more illustrious than that of his Brethren but the Text saith the Tongues like as of Fire were divided and sat upon every one of them singly and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 2 3. The mighty Wind also wherein this Flame came filled all the House where they were sitting and not only that corner where St. Peter was placed And so this Promise was equally perform'd in common to them all as it had been made to them all ‖ Texts examined which Papists cite for St. Peter 's Supremacy Part 1. p. 95. Secondly If we consult the Fathers we may observe in them those two things pertinent to our Purpose 1. Not one of them intimates that any thing was to be found in this Text peculiar to Peter by which he was set above his Brethren but whatsoever Power was here given they supposed it given in common and equally to them all And some of them expresly tell us that he gave the same Power here to all the Apostles that he had before given to one so do St. Cyprian and Theophylact 2. The Power here given to all the Apostles they take to be so full that a fuller and more ample could not be given to Peter St. Chrysostom says He gave them all Heavenly Power when he said to them Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. And what Power can be greater than this The Father hath given all Judgment to the Son but I see this all Judgment commited to these by the Son * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. c. 5. And Cyril of Alexandria as I find him quoted by Bellarmine says That by these Words the Apostles were properly created Apostles and Teachers of the whole World and that we may understand that all Ecclesiastical Power is contained in the Apostolical Authority therefore Christ added AS MY FATHER SENT ME c. For as much as the Father sent the Son invested with the highest Power †Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 23. Now can there be any Power or Degree of Power that is not contained in all and in the highest Power I shall add no more but that Pope Gregory I. by virtue of these Words ascribes to all the Apostles superni judicii Principatum and makes them all to be God's Vicars in retaining some Men's Sins and relaxing others ‖ Principatumque superni judicii sortiuntur ut vice Dei quibusdam peccata retineant quibusdam relaxent Hom. 26. de divers Lect. Evang. Yea Thirdly This is no more than what is acknowledged by many zealous Assertors of the Pope's Supremacy Of which I shall now name but three because they may serve instead of a thousand Witnesses two of the three being Jesuits and two of them also Cardinals The Jesuit Maldonate in his Comment upon these Words tells us That the Power which Christ had received as sent by his Father he gave to his Apostles whom he sent in his stead whom he made his Vicars This is manifest saith he from the Words following for therefore he breathed on them therefore he said Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. that he might shew that he gave as great Authority to them as he had received from his Father for there can be no greater than that of remitting Sins * Quam potestatem ipse a Patre missus accepisset eam Apostolis dare quos suo loco mitteret quos vicarios suos faceret Hoc apparet ex verbis sequentibus propterea enim insufflavit in eos propterea dixit Quorum remiseritis peccata ut ostenderet se quantam authoritatem ipse a
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.
Domini by an error of the Press I suppose put for Serm. 13. which is as little to the purpose as either of the former and shall desire the Discussor to resolve me these two Questions 1. Whether every one of the Apostles received the Keys as Head of the Church because they are all by St. Austin joined with Peter in representing the Church For having quoted the Words of our Saviour As my Father sent me so send I you Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. He adds If therefore they did bear the person of the Church and so this was said to them as if it was said to the Church it self ‖ Sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos ergo si personam gerebant Ecclesiae sic eis hoc dictum est tanquam ipsi Ecclesiae diceretur c. De Baptismo Contr. Donatist l. 3. c. 18. 2. Whether St. John was the Primate of the Church Triumphant The ground of the Query is because St. Austin in this same Tractat quoted by the Discussor makes St. John the Figure of the State of the Church in Heaven as he does St. Peter of the State of the Church on Earth But it tends much to Peter 's Glory that in St. Austin 's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he How much soever it may otherwise tend to his Glory nothing of Dominion can be hence inferred Nor is this Glory so appropriated by Austin to Peter but it is by him ascrib'd to the other Apostles together with him as I have shewed before But how bright soever this Glory may be in it self the Discussor has here drawn a Vail over it by making him who before received the Keys as their Prince to receive them now as their Proxy for so he adds in the same Page He received them immediately They received them by a Proxy c. Now a Proxy as such hath not one Ray of Claritude by which he outshines those whose Proxy he is When Optatus says That he alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be COMMUNICATED to the rest he doth not mean to be communicated by him but by Christ as a Roman Doctor expounds it * Et claves regni Coelorum communicandas caeteris id est quas Christus commendaturus erat caeteris Du Pin. Dissertat 4. c. 1. And the preference Optatus there gives to him consists in this that he alone received the Promise first which was afterwards perform'd to all the rest As to what he adds concerning Matth. 18. 18. That the Fathers expound it of fraternal Correption If he mean all or the greater number of the Fathers it shews either his Ignorance or his Insincerity Of those four he mentions Origen I grant does so Chrysostom Maldonat says speaks obscurely that he knows not whether he was of this opinion or not but in another place he as plainly as words can make it applies this Text to the Apostles only †De utilitat Lect. Script Tom. 5. p. 590. Edit Front. Duc. St. Jerom he palpably abuses by quoting his Words on ver 16. whereas he expresly expounds ver 18. of the Power given to the Church of binding and loosing The words cited from St. Ambrose I know not where to find but I suspect he has dealt as fairly with him as with St. Jerom. The remainder of this Chapter is either ridiculous or impertinent except that he says St. Jerom in his Comments on Matth. 16. speaking of the Power of Keys acknowledges Peter to have received it SPECIATIM Which is not I grant impertinent but that which is much worse a downright Falsity For in his Comments upon that Chapter the word Speciatim is not to be found nor any other of a like import relating to St. Peter Nor yet those Words he quotes as following after it Proposition IV. That by the Keys promised and given to PETER is meant the supreme Power of governing the Vniversal Church ‖ P. 133 134. This will be dispatched in a word If he meant Supreme in a negative sense viz. that Power than which there is none in the Church higher it would be true but then in this sense Supreme Power was given to every Apostle But as he means thereby a Power superior to that of the other Apostles by which Peter was constituted their Governour so it is false For since as has been already proved and as the Sorbonist before-quoted affirms * Primum est Petro promissas esse eas ipsas claves quae postea caeteris concessae sunt ac proinde per claves hic non intelligi ut vult Bellarminus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam Ellies du Pin. dissertat 4. c. 1. p. 309. the very same Keys promised to Peter were afterward granted to the rest therefore by the Keys cannot be here understood the supreme Power over the Whole Church What he produces for proof is of no force St. Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour by virtue of his Promise of the Donation of the Keys did not only give S. Peter Power over the whole World but to rise a Key higher EVEN OVER THINGS IN HEAVEN †Pag. 134. And S. Chrysostom also says of S. Paul That he took upon him the whole World And of all the Apostles in common That not Nations and divers Cities but the World was committed to them as we have before heard And to rise to the higher Key Did not Christ give to the other Apostles the same power over things in Heaven when he said to them Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in HEAVEN And does not the same Chrysostom speaking of these Words Matth. 18. 18. say of all the Apostles They sitting upon Earth give Sentence and the virtue of their Sentence passes to the Heavens As Emperors sitting in some one City give Sentence and constitute Laws but the Power of their Sentences and Laws runs through all the World so the Apostles sitting in some one place ordained these things but the Power of their Laws and Bonds did not pass through the World only but ascended to the very Height of the Heavens ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. De Utilitat Lect. Script p. 590 591. He adds the Keys likewise Apoc. 1. 10. signifie supreme Power where our Saviour says of himself I have the Keys of Death and of Hell by which Phrase absolute Dominion over Death and Hell are indigitated * Pag. 134. But were these Keys in St. Peter's keeping Had he absolute power of raising the Dead No he will say he doth not quote it to this purpose but only to shew that the Keys in this place signify absolute Dominion over that which is spoken of Suppose they do so here what then Do the Keys signify as much when attributed to Peter as when attributed to Christ Is there no difference between the Keys in the Hands of the Master of the Family and
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.
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
because St. Bernard is too much a Child to be reckoned for or rather too much the Pope's Slave to be of any Authority in this matter But now suppose the Fathers were all of Opinion that these Words contained a Commission properly so called yet the Discussor will get nothing by it because their joynt Opinion was that what was here said to Peter appertain'd in common to all the Apostles and in as high a Degree to them as it did to him The first Reason he gives why Peter was sorry seems to me as pleasant and divertive as the Reason his Antagonist gave why it was an Exhortation seem'd to him I must tell you magisterially enough for a new Convert he had little reason to be chearly Why For Christ had no sooner given him his Commission but he allay'd his Joy by foretelling him his Crucisixion He was grieved before he foretold this and therefore had no Joy to be allay'd If therefore the foretelling him this was any reason of his Grief it seems a Man hath reason to be grieved at ill News before it is told him The reasons he gives from the Fathers of Peter's Sorrow do not concern the present Question I need not therefore take notice of them That the words Pasce oves meas include Peter's Restauration to his Apostleship the Discussor grants to Dr. Barrow Tho if he fell from it I think he was restored to it before when Christ said to him together with the other Apostles As my Father sent me so send I you But this his Restauration will not satisfy He was not only readmitted into the society of the twelve but was exalted to a higher degree so as to become the Prince and Pastor of that Company This he says is the real sense of the Fathers If so the Fathers were mistaken in expressing their sense for that this is not the sense of those Sayings he cites from them will appear by a short review of the Particulars which I shall now give you After his Tears says St. Ambrose he is taken to be a Pastor and receives others to be govern'd by him who had not before govern'd himself †Post lacrymas Pastor assumptus est et alios regendos accipit qui seipsum prius non regerat So the words are quoted by him What 's this to his being exalted above the Apostles Were not the other Apostles made Pastors and had others committed to their Government as well as he Mark by the way That he hath chang'd accepit into accipit seipse into seipsum and which is very observable rexit not into rexerat but regerat a word for which the Grammar hath neither Mood nor Tense He quotes these words from St. Ambrose de poenitentia Petri whereas St. Ambrose hath no Tract so intitled but the words allowing for those alterations he hath made are in his 48th Sermon de Tempore As little to the purpose is the other passage of St. Ambrose Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus à Diabolo est that is Peter is set over the Church after that he is tempted of the Devil For none certainly will deny but the Apostles were Praepositi Ecclesiae set over Majorem gratiam reperit quam amisit tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum grâ—gem accipit the Church as well as he But S. Austin says he found greater Grace than he lost ‖ In Johan 21. 23. That 's granted but not greater than the other Apostles received when it was said to them Teach all Nations c. For before his Fall their Commission was limited to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel but now extended to Gentiles as well as Jews Tho by the way this is none of St. Austin's but taken out of a Sermon falsly ascribed to him as the Benedictins of Paris have shewed Arnobius says Major gradus redditur ploranti quam aufertur neganti It 's true since all that could be taken from him upon his denial of Christ was no more than was before that given him which as I now said was to preach the Gospel to the Jews whereas after his Resurrection Christ enlarged his Commission but made it no larger than that of the other Apostles But St. Chrysostom says He so wash'd away that Sin as to become the Prince of the Apostles and to have the whole World deliver'd into his Hands * Lib. 6. contra Judaeos It is in St. Chrysostom the first of the Apostles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he was before he denied his Master And that every one of the Apostles had the whole World deliver'd into his Hands as much as St. Peter has been before proved Besides it is observable that St. Chrysostom presently after his Comment upon Feed my Sheep says that St. John as well as St. Peter received the Government of the whole World. The reason he gives why our Saviour asked Peter thrice whether he loved him I own to be that which is generally given by the Fathers His next Assault is upon a Quotation out of S. Austin and then upon another out of St. Basil produced by his Antagonist to prove that the Words feed my Sheep were spoken to the rest as well as to Peter but so feeble is his Attempt that there 's no Danger S. Austin's Word 's are when it is said to Peter it is said to all If thou lovest me feed my Sheep * Cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur si amas me pasce oves meas Which one would think were too plain to admit of any Dispute But he fancies that he finds something to his Purpose in the Words foregoing which he tells us are these Non sine causa inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni Coelorum datae sunt cum Petro datae sunt cum ei dicitur c. And what now Here says he you are to understand that in his Judgment Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholick Church And what follows from hence that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him This is that we say O but they were given to him as to her Head Primate and Rector In this only Sense those words which were immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to all the rest they being all comprised in him as their Chief And in this Acceptation he grants that FEED MY SHEEP might be spoken to all his Disciples †Pag. 18â— 186. But where says St. Austin so or any thing like it He has already proved this out of his Writings And I have already shewed that he is so far from proving it that the places he has produced for it do prove the direct contrary ‖ Vide pag. 91 92 93 94. What follows next that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely is nothing to the purpose and therefore he might have
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
us of the Fruits of it in many of their Lives there is no honest Curate who will not be admitted not only to be an equal Sharer but to be his Superior in this Pastoral Commission 2. The second Argument is taken from the Injunction Feed MY SHEEP The words Oves meas says the Discussor do impale and infold all Christ's Sheep in general as well the Apostles as other Christians all were recommended and deliver'd over to Peter 's Care and Presecture ‖ Pag. 194 195. And he deliver'd to him says Dr. Tho. G. the supreme Charge or Superintendency of things in order to the feeding of his Flock not only of his Lambs but of his Sheep in which expression all the Faithful of what degree or preeminence soever are included * Pag. 29 30. The Discussor hath offer'd two Arguments why Oves meas must be taken in this latitude 1. Because the words are deliver'd indefinitely 2. Because this was the sense of St. Bernard and some other Fathers What will not Men say who are resolved to serve a Cause Could any unprejudic'd Person have ever so much as dream'd that by Feed my Sheep Christ meant be thou Lord over all thy fellow-Apostles But let us consider the Reasons he gives 1. Because the words are deliver'd indefinitely in an unlimited manner there being no exception restriction or distinction †Pag. 194 195. In answer to which it will be sufficient to ask this Gentleman a few Questions 1. Whether every indefinite Expression be to be understood universally For instance when Christ said to Peter Thou shalt henceforth catch Men whether it was meant simply and without exception all the Men in the World Who does not know that an indefinite Proposition is equivalent sometimes to an Universal sometimes to a Particular That when its parts are not necessarily connected it is equivalent to a Particular only But he thinks to defend himself by the great Name of St. Basil who says That which is indefinite comprehends all St. Basil was too great a Master of Reason to assert that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be false and absurd so that if these are his words it is certain he meant not every Indefinite but an Indefinite so qualified 2. Whether all Nations and every Creature be not words of as large extent as my Sheep Or whether the two former being expresly universal do not extend to more than the later And if so whether every Apostle had not at least as large a Commission as this here given to Peter And consequently whether this Argument be not as good as that of the Discussor Andrew had a Commission to go into all the World and to preach the Gospel to every Creature but every Creature includes the Apostles Peter himself not excepted therefore the other Apostles not excepting Peter were St. Andrew's Sheep 3. Whether the Flock of God be not as indefinite as my Sheep Whether it doth not comprehend both Lambs and Sheep too And if so whether when St. Paul exhorts the Elders of Ephesus to feed the Flock of God he gives not every one of them Commission to feed the Apostles and among them Peter as well as the rest 4. If all Christ's Sheep without exception be here committed to Peter whether Peter be not committed to his own Government and by consequence whether he be not both superior and inferior to himself his own Prince and Subject too Since he grants that Peter himself is one of Christ's Sheep 5. Whether the Apostles were not under the immediate Conduct of the Holy Ghost And if so whether it be reasonable to suppose they were subject to the Conduct of St. Peter And to add but one more 6. Whether St. Paul for instance was St. Peter's Curate The Discussor will do well to answer these and several other such like Questions which may be put to him before he ventures to publish his second Book 2. But this was likewise St. Bernard 's sense lib. 2. de Conf. ad Eugenium he was unlucky in adding an f to Con. for I do not yet understand how Conf. should be a contraction of Consideratione Si me amas Petre pasce Oves inquit quas illius vel illius populos civitatis aut regionis aut certi regni Oves meas inquit Cui non planum non designâsse aliquas sed assignâsse omnes nihil excipitur ubi nihil distinguitur Why does he not say it was the sense of the Infallible Judg of Controversies Pope Innocent III ‖ Nobis autem in beato Petro sunt oves Christi commissae dicente Domino Pasce oves Non distinguâ—â—s inter has oves alias ut alienum a suo demonstraret ovili qui Petrum successores illius magistros non recognoscerent Pastores Decretal l. 1. de Majorit Obed. Tit. 33. c. 6. His Authority might perhaps have been of weight with some who think St. Bernard's is too light and I think it would have weighed as much with us Hereticks And yet which is fair I will promise to assent to this Passage of St. Bernard's if he will assent but to one of ten which if he please I will produce out of the same Tract from which this is taken Or if he will subscribe to this one Passage in his 6th Sermon on Psal 90. where after he had complain'd of the monstrous Corruptions of the Church of Rome It remains says he that the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition not the Day-Devil only but the Noonday-Devil be revealed which is not only transform'd into an Angel of Light but is exalted above all that is called God or that is worshipp'd * Superest ut reveletur homo peccati filius perditionis Doemonium non modo diurnum sed meridianum quod non solum transfiguratur in Angelum lucis sed extollitur super omne quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur Is not St. Bernard's Authority as to this Saying as little regarded as Luther's or Calvin's But be his Authority never so little what is wanting in him will he may think be made up by the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and Theophylact which he hath added to him But the comfort is he quotes nothing from them but what hath been already answered And therefore though I have little reason to take any thing upon trust from him yet I will not here put my self to the trouble of examining the Originals but will give you his Quotations as he himself hath rendred them in our own Language St. Chrysostom says Christ foretold St. Peter great things and deliver'd the World into his Hands Again Christ deliver'd into his Hands the Government of the Oecumenical Church And on Matth. 16. he confesses him to preside every where in the World. Hence he calls him the Master of the Vniverse Theophylact likewise in his Comments on John 21. says Christ delivers to Peter the Government of the Sheep of all the World. And
again Follow me delivering into your Hands the whole World †P. 195 196. Now in all this 1. It is not said that Christ delivered into his Hands the Government of the Apostles or that he made him their Master 2. Here is no more attributed to Saint Peter than what is by the same Saint Chrysostom ascribed to the other Apostles as has been shewed And therefore St. Peter's Power over them cannot with any more reason be inferr'd from these general Expressions than that St. John or any other Apostle had Authority over him For the Apostolical Commission being not limited to any one Nation but expressed in those general Terms Go into all the World Teach all Nations the Fathers therefore reckon'd every Apostle to have the universal Church and the whole World committed to him So that in their account St. Bartholomew's no less than St. Peter's Power was not confined within the limited Tropicks of any particular Kingdom or Regions but without any Boundary or Horizon to terminate it without any Shores or Frontiers to restrain it was stretched and extended over the vast Vniverse Because to whatsoever part of the World any one of them came he had Authority to preach and baptize to constitute and govern Churches This is no more that what is affirm'd by the Romanist before quoted and by him return'd in answer to these places of Chrysostom Theophylact and others of the like Nature It is to no purpose says he what some Men say that the Sheep of the whole World were committed to Peter As St. Leo in his 3 d Sermon of the Assumption Gregory in his 4th Book and 32. Epist Theophylact upon the last Chapter of John and before these Chrysostom in his 87th Homily upon John and his 80th to the People of Antioch ‖ Chrysostom hath but 21 Sermons to the People of Antioch and therefore here is an error in the number also in his 6th against the Jews For since Peter and the rest of the Apostles had received a Power of preaching through the whole World so that to all and every one of them indefinitely the Sheep throughout the whole World were committed they may be called Pastors of the whole World. So Chrysostom does not scruple to call Timothy Bishop of the whole World and Paul often especially in his second Homily of the Praises of St. Paul. Therefore the Sheep of the whole World may be said to be committed to Peter because he received the Sheep not of any one certain Kingdom or place to be governed by him but indefinitely the Sheep of the whole World to which he should come †Nec refert quod nonnulli aiunt Petro totius mundi oves esse commissas S. Leo Serm. 3. de Assumptione Gregor lib. 4. Epist 32. Theophylact. in cap. ult Johan ante hos Chrysostomus Homil. 87. in Joan. 80. in Pop. Antioch Cum enim Petrus reliqui Apostoli per totum orbem praedicandi potestatem accepissent c. Du Pin dissert 4. c. 1. p. 311. Yea this is no more than what is granted by Bellarmine ‖ De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 11. l. 2. c. 12. And the Discussor * Part. 3. p. 179 198. who tells us again and again that all the Apostles were Heads Rectors and Pastors of the universal Church and that the whole World was their Diocess Having seen that the Testimontes cited by the Discussor are of no force I would now have proceeded to shew that the Ancients were so far from taking these Words to contain any Power peculiar to St. Peter that they thought not only that the other Apostles but all Christian Bishops were as much concern'd in them as he was that the Duty inculcated by them was equally incumbent upon them all and that they are by them equally apply'd to all without making a Difference or reserving any Prerogative for St. Peter This I say I would now have proceeded to had I not found the Work already done not only by Protestants but many learned Men of the Church of Rome particularly by Vigorius †Ad Respons Synodal Concil Basil Comment c. 13. Launoy ‖ Epist ad Raimund Formentin par 2. ad Hadrian Vallant parte quinta ad Carol. Magistrum and Du Pin * De Antiq. Eccles Disciplina dissert 4. c. 1. p. 310. Whom one would think the Discussor should take himself concerned to answer before he again tries his Skill upon Protestants He next proceeds to several nice Distinctions as he calls them made by the Protestant Divine whose Papers he answers as that Christ said Oves meas not tuas That he said pasce Oves not Pastores That it was not said confirma Filios or Servos or Subditos but Fratres Now though there be good reason and ground for these Distinctions yet because there is no need of them in order to the answering of any thing offer'd by the Discussor I shall not insist upon them He now hastens to conclude but before he comes to it he thinks fit to shew the Protestant Divine how fair an Antagonist he has of him To that end he thus bespeaks him If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep I will exempt them from Peter 's Prefecture †Pag. 199 200. He need not prove this to procure their Exemption unless the Discussor first prove that every Indefinite is equivalent to a Vniversal But he says If they were his Sheep they were under the Denomination of Oves meas recommended to Peter 's Shepherdly Government If so then Peter himself was under that denomination recommended to his own Shepherdly Government for he was no less Christ's Sheep than the other Apostles But Christ often calls them Sheep and this enforces him to believe that he meant them When Christ calls them so he calls Peter so too and this will then enforce him to believe that he meant Peter as much as the rest But the Truth is by Oves meas he meant neither him nor the other Apostles who as they are Apostles are never reckoned as Sheep but as Shepherds and therefore not to be fed themselves by any but all of them to feed others Now that I may not be behind-hand with him in Kindness but may shew my self as fair an Antagonist as he is I will make him the like offer by which he will perceive how concluding his Argument is If he can prove that Peter is none of Christ's Sheep I will then exempt him from being under his own Prefecture Again If he can prove that Peter is no Creature I will exempt him from the Prefecture of the Apostles This Argument to speak in the Words of a learned Divine of our own Church ‖ Conference between Rainolds and Hart. c. 3. p. 90. over-masters the Discussor's because Christ said not to Peter feed ALL my Sheep But he said to the Apostles preach the Gospel to EVERY Creature He will not yet
let the Fathers rest but summons them again to give in evidence for Peter's Power over the Apostles which he will never be able to extort from them St. Chrysostom he says interprets Oves meas on Peter 's Brethren which were the Apostles Hom. 87. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Christ says to him If you love me preside over your Brethren And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He delivers into his Hands the Government of his Brethren * Pag. 200. But why must St. Chrysostom by his Brethren mean the Apostles and not Christians in common Why should he not use the word in that sense here in which he does elsewhere and in which it is used in the New Testament and by St. Peter himself in his Epistles Is there any thing in the Context that determines it to the Apostles Nay when he says presently after that John as well as Peter received the charge of the whole World and that notwithstanding the dear Affection Peter had for him they could not continue to live together because that would be to the damage of the Church can any one think that he took St. John to be one of Peter's Flock But if St. Chrysostom when he speaks of St. Peter's Brethren means the Apostles then by a parity of reason by St. Paul's Brethren he means the Apostles and yet no Man will believe that when he says of St. Paul that he would have concealed his Revelations unless he had seen his Brethren perishing †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 2. Epist ad Corinth Hom. 26. p. 733. that by his Brethren he meant Peter and the other Apostles He next quotes Theophylact to as little purpose He delivers says Theophylact into Peter 's Hands the Prefecture of all the Faithful Because none being excepted in what place soever he came they were all under his Charge But that he did not include St. John nor by consequence the other Apostles under all the Faithful appears by what follows Because says he speaking of Peter and John that great work the preaching of the Gospel was entrusted to them it was not fit they should be joined but divided that one might go to these and the other to those ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again upon these words If I will that he tarry till I come he brings in Christ thus speaking to Peter I now bring thee forth to the Government of the World and follow me but let him viz. John remain here till I come again and I will bring him forth as I do thee * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But he goes on Besides this you will find the unanimous Consent of the Fathers attesting Christ's whole Flock which must necessarily infold the Apostles to be recommended to Peter What will not this Man say If by the Fathers he means all the Fathers as by the Rules of his Logick he must is it a sufficient induction to name six without an c. But it is pleasant to observe that 1. Not one of those he quotes says the whole Flock was recommended to Peter 2. Those which say the Flock was committed 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 1. Not one of them attests that the whole Flock was recommended to him as will appear by a recital of them St. Ambrose says As a good Shepherd he received the Flock that he was that faithful and wise Servant whom the Lord set over his Family that by the Judgment of the Lord the Flock was committed to him St. Chrysostom says the Flock was by Christ entrusted to him And Epiphanius that he was entrusted with the Flock St. Basil calls him a Shepherd after Christ St. Chrysostom again says That he excelled the rest of the Apostles Arnobius That none of the Apostles but Peter had the Title of Pastor from our Saviour Where is it said that the whole Flock or that the Apostles were recommended to him But I shall not pass over these without a few Remarks 1. That the first passage he gives us from St. Ambrose is not to be found in the 47th Sermon out of which he quotes it perhaps his memory here failed him for he before cites a Sermon of St. Austin's for the very same words But that I rather observe is this that in the other Passage immediately after the Words he quotes concerning Peter St. Ambrose says all the same things and more of St. Paul which he fraudulently conceals 2. Whereas St. Basil says only Christ constituted Peter a Pastor of his Church AFTER himself He tells us St. Basil calls him the Shepherd NEXT after Christ 3. His abuse of St. Chrysostom in Inscript Act. Apost is such as equally betrays both his Folly and Insincerity He says Chrysostom calls Peter the Head Pastor of the Apostles But now if he was their Head-Pastor he was not their sole Pastor they must have another Pastor over them subordinate to Peter this shews his Folly. 2. Nor is the Insincerity less egregious For that which Chrysostom says is this that Antioch received the first of the Apostles as its Pastor Peter having been Bishop there His Words are thus englished This is one Prerogative of our City that in the Beginning it received the chief of the Apostles for its Teacher For it was meet that the City which before all the World was adorned with the name of Christians should receive for its Pastor the first of the Apostles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judge now whether there was ever a more pure peice of Forgery than the Discussor's Translation of those Words Is not he think you a Man well qualified to cry out upon others for culling out here and there a Line without perpending its Relation either to the foregoing or following matter Ends without Beginnings Beginnings without Ends 4. The Words produc'd for St. Austin's are taken out of a Book that is none of his ‖ Quaest Vet. Nov. Test as Erasmus has proved by unanswerable Arguments But if his Reasons and Authority should be rejected Bellarmine not only says so but that it is the Book of some Heretick and proves it too * De Scriptor Ecclesiast p. 161. Edit Lugd. 1675. And Labbe says that all Men easily consent that it is none of St. Austin's †De Scriptor Ecclesiast tom 1. p. 137. 5. Arnobius from whom the last Testimony is taken is of no Authority Bellarmine hath proved that he was not that Arnobius who lived about the beginning of Dioclesian's Reign and wrote the seven Books contra Gentes ‖ De Scriptor Eccl. p. 88. which Du Pin says is so certain that all the World agrees in it * Novelle Bibliotheque tome premier p. 630. Sixtus Senensis think he was an African †Eiblioth Sanct. l. 4. p. 201 202. Oudin that he was a French-Man
Scripture are not so full but he might have been content to have taken to their assistance those other Scripture-proofs produc'd to this purpose by some of their learned Men such as Christ paid Tribute only for himself and Peter Peter alone cast himself into the Sea Peter drew the Net to the shore full of great Fishes Christ said to Peter SIMON SLEEPEST THOV 2. That he hath not steered his Course by the unerring Pharo's of Antiquity as he promised †Pag. 3. but by new Lights which have led him quite contrary to that Course the Antients steered No place therefore is left for the second Inquiry viz. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeded PETER in this Supremacy since Peter can be succeeded by none in that which he never had Should it indeed be granted that Peter was invested with it it will not follow that the Pope has it unless it be proved first that Peter was in a strict and proper sense Bishop of Rome and 2. That all the Power Peter was invested with was to descend to his Roman Successors neither of which will be ever proved But now if Peter was never possess'd of such Supremacy himself admit he was Bishop of Rome and that whatsoever Power he had was derived to his Roman Successors no such Supremacy could be derived from him to them It would be therefore an idle thing to insist upon this especially considering that the Discussor himself hath not done so but spoken of it only occasionally and out of place intending I presume to make this the main Subject of his second Book which he has promised But if he resolve to be as good as his word and to oblige us with another of his Books let him first establish Peter's Supremacy upon a more solid Foundation than he has yet done otherwise he will but render himself the more ridiculous in endeavouring to erect the Pope's Supremacy upon it FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. VVHat Supremacy is contended for and what the Discussor supposes as the Foundation of it Sect. 1. 1. That the rest of the Apostles were not ignorant of Christ's Divinitty when Peter made this Confession Thou art Christ c.   This proved  1. By Scripture pag. 7. 2. By what the Discussor himself grants viz. 1. That John the Baptist knew it pag. 9. 2. That the Devils knew it pag. 12. 3. By the Testimonies of the Fathers 13.  A compendious way of reconciling Hereticks 18.  Jansenius and Tostatus misrepresented 19.  Four Questions answered 20. 4. By the Testimonies of those Modern Romanists the Discussor quotes for the contrary 21 c. Sect. 2. 2. That Peter did not attain to this knowledg by a peculiar Revelation 26.  The Testimonies of the Fathers alledg'd to this purpose shew'd to be insignificant 27. CHAP. II. These words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock c. examined Sect. 1. Christ the Primary Foundation of the Church 30. How impertinently the Discussor quotes the Fathers ibid. The Vanity of his critical Observation from St. Basil St. Ambrose and St. Jerom 32. Several places of St. Austin answer'd and the true sense of them given 33 34. Sect. 2. Whether those Fathers who assert St. Peter's Faith to be the Rock do thereby exclude his Person pag. 38. A Passage of Theophylact answer'd 39. Another of St. Chrysostom 40. Sect. 3. Whether St. Peter had any Pre-eminece as he is the Foundation of the Church above the rest of the Apostles 42. The Testimonies produc'd by Dr. Tho. G. to prove the Church more eminently built on St. Peter examin'd and shew'd to import no such thing 45 c. In what sense St. Jerom calls St. Peter the Head and Prince of the Apostles 46 Of the reason why Christ gave him the Name Peter 49. The difference the Discussor makes between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew'd to be ridiculous 50 51. That St. Peter's Primacy was that of Order or Place only 55 56. The Sayings of the Fathers produc'd by the Discussor to prove the Church more eminently built on St. Peter shew'd to be impertinent pag. 59. Especially those of St. Jerom pag. 60. and St. Cyprian 64. In what respects the Church may be truly said to be built more eminently on St. Peter 68. CHAP. III. Their whole Discourse upon these words I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. reduc'd to four Propositions 70. Prop. 1. That the promise of the Keys was made to Peter alone Two things return'd in answer to it 71.  What meant by the Keys what difference between them and Binding and Loosing 72. Prop. 2. That Peter receiv'd the Keys immediately from Christ but the other Apostles from or by St. Peter confuted by Scripture and by four Arguments from Bellarmin pag. 76 77. Prop. 3. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was subordinate to a higher degree of it in St. Peter The contrary prov'd from that place where the Power of the Keys before promised was actually given viz. John 20 21 22 23. 1. That the Power of the Keys was here given the Romanists must grant  1. Because this is expresly taught by the Fathers 79. 2. Because it is taught by the Roman Catechism and the Council of Trent 80. 2. That the Power was equally given to Peter and the other Apostles is clear'd from  1. The words themselves 81. 2. The Judgment of the Fathers upon them 82. 3. The Concession of many learned Men of the Church of Rome 83.  The Testimonies of the Fathers cited by the Discussor viz. of Origen St. Hilary Ambrose Cyril Basil Chrysostom Cyprian Bede and St. Austin examin'd and answer'd 85 c.  Whether the Fathers expound Matth. 18. 18. of Fraternal Correption 95. Prop. 4. That by the Keys promised and given to Peter is meant the Supreme Power of governing the Church ibid.  His Proof shew'd to be of no force pag. 96.  A twofold difference between the Keys in the hands of the Master of the Family and in the hands of his Steward 79. CHAP. IV. Sect. 1. Of these words Feed my Sheep 99. The sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 100. Whether these Words contain a Commission 102. The Father did not think that Peter was by them exalted to a higher degree of Power than he had before 105. A Quotation out of St. Austin and another out of St. Basil vindicated 107. The vanity of his Arguments hence to prove Peter's Supream Pastorship 109. Why Christ's Interrogation was of a greater degree of Love 110. The folly of making Oves meas because indefinite to include the Apostles exposed by several Questions 112. The Testimonies of Bernard St. Chrysostom and Theophylact answer'd 113 114 c. Not one of those Fathers say the whole Flock was recommended to St. Peter whom the Discussor quotes as saying so 120. Several Remarks from his Quotations which shew his Ignorance or Insincerity 120 121. Those Fathers which say the Flock was committed to Peter meant to more to include the other Apostles than Peter himself 122. All the Apostles were Christ's Vicars 124. ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. for Treaties read Treatise P. 33. Marg. l. 1. f. ejam r. elâ—am P. 36. l. 21. f. Pâ—trum r. Patrum P. 40. l. 7. f. Barronius r. Baronius P. 45. l. 10. f. put r. but. P. 47. l. 27. after Reasoning put a Comma P. 50. l. 22. f. evaned r. evanid P. 62. l. 21. f. luxid r. lurid P. 55. Marg. l. 5. f. rogâ—ntè r. royantè l. 8. f. oùt r. où f. Moyers r. Moyens P. 72. l. 30. after Peter put a Period and begin the next word with a Capital P. 79. l. 2. r. Apostles P. 83. Marg. l. 20. put a before Christo P. 85. Marg. f. solvetis r. solveris P. 89. l. 18. f. of r. ob P. 99. after l. 28. put Sect. 1. P. 104. l. 22. r. reckon'd for a Father P. 105. l. 25. r. se ipse Other literal Errors and Mispointings the Reader is desired to correct