Pope acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests You make Laws in defiance of him pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper They made Laws which were according to his Approbation the Rules and Definitions of the Church backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword You make Laws in affront to him and against the Decrees of the Church Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastick Laws nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons But that you may more be convinc'd herein I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party and see how they quadrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justinian Novel 131. We enact that according to their own Sanctions the most Holy Pope of Old Rome be the Prince of High-Priests And in his Decrees about Justiniana he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Justin eod Lib. 7. he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church not to be referr'd to your Holiness as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God As for Theodosius I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd as deliver'd to him by St. Peter should be observ'd enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of under penalty of being reputed Hereticks and Infamous and deservers of Punishment Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King and to speak the Truth 't is their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators not by usurping Authority over the Church depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with and appropriating it to themselves changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils and Antient Traditionary Truths handed down from Father to Son these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful for me who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home and being return'd into your own Countrey you affirm of our English Kings that Church-Affairs were both de facto jure govern'd by them This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian I have already prov'd that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power and that these two Governments are distinct and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be other limits of a Kingdom and other limits of the Priesthood but this is greater than that As for Matter of Fact I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated either by their Passion or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not appertain to them have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church and asserting a pretended Right have clashed with the Roman Bishop and medled de facto with Church-Matters but quo jure is the Question You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power unless it be allow'd of for granted That whatever a King do's is lawful Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures and disposal of Bishopricks They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy A Pope may be to blame and so may a King but neither of these Institutions as Sacred ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil Did they rob the Pope of his Power and assume Papal Jurisdiction Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs ordering Laymen Vicar Generals in Spiritualities as Cromwell was who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops as Head over them This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome did they ever part from her and all other Christian Churches besides as you did in your Reformation making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils changing Religion and altering Articles of Belief Did they pick Quarrels with the Church and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths Demolishing Religious Houses violating Sacred Orders Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh or of those brave Princes before him But I shall not proceed further on this Point we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven who well knows how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church and his own Royal Right betwixt what belongs to God and what to Caesar what to the Miter and what to the Crown A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Heathenism and Conversion to Christianity In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith for defending whereof this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title For this Prince Pietate insignis Armis no less Pious than Valiant no less Just than Good endued with all those Adorable Qualities which render him amongst Kings the most Conspicuous amongst Monarchs the most Renown'd we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God whose Lieutenant he is hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate Perjur'd Villains who have so long triumph'd over us bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him according to the Platform of Tertullian wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam Imperium securum Domum tutam Exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem Populum probum
Successors into the Hands of Secular Princes I shall herein be satisfied This I am sure of that it continued in their Hands above 300 Years Constantine being the first Christian King and 't is evident enough that he never attempted to rob them of it and assume it to himself and the other good Emperours would not intermeddle with Church-Affairs but by assent of the Church and to assist it Some other Emperors that were busie herein ruin'd themselves thereby and some repented of it as Constantius by name who upon his Death-bed declar'd this to be one of the three things that most disquieted him which Nazianz. mentions to be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The murder of his Relations his proclaiming the Apostate Julian Emperor his Innovation in matters of Faith But that which gives me greatest satisfaction herein is because I find the Fathers to check the Emperors when they put their Fingers into Church Matters which had been very unproper had they look'd on them as Heads of the Church Thus Athanasius Ad solit vit agentes speaking of Constantius the Emperor's usurping Power in the Church says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who is he that seeing him ruling over the lawful Bishops and presiding in Ecclesiastick Judgments will not consequently say this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel And in the same Epistle he tells the Emperor wherein his Power properly consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God has committed the Kingdom to you but he has intrusted the Affairs of the Church with us And accordingly St. Ambrose tells the Emperor upon the like occasion Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum non sacrorum ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent ad Sacerdotem Ecclesia In his Epist 33. ad Imperat. and in his Epist 32. he tells him In causâ fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare This Power of the Clergy in Ecclesiasticks is acknowledg'd by Ignatius ad Smyrn where he expresly says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Bishop Vsher thus translates Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent the words may be translated either praeter Episcopum or sine Episcopo This Priestly Power is acknowledged by the Fathers Hence 't is that Nazianz. in his Orat. 17. ascribes to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Dominion Tribunal and Principacy And in the same Orat. he affirms their Power nobler than the Secular where speaking of the Governour he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we our selves rule I will add that our Principacy is greater and more perfect And accordingly he tells the Governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Law of Christ had subjected him to his Dominion and Tribunal St. Chrysoft seems to be of the same Opinion Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae Vidi Dominum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priesthood is a more venerable and greater Principacy than a Temporal Kingdom affirming that God subjected the Kings Head to the High-Priests Hands instructing us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he was the greatest Prince of the two And accordingly Cyril in his 17th Catech. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this very day we see Earthly Princes govern'd by Ecclesiasticks I have not quoted any of these Authorities with an intent to decide which of these two Powers be the greatest but to prove that the Fathers did acknowledge them both as distinct and as I have declar'd both of them Absolute and Independent in their kind so I shall conclude this Point with the saying of Ignatius to that purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are now pleas'd to descend to particulars mentioning the Christian Emperors by name who de facto jure govern'd the Church The first you pick out is Constantine whom you have most falsly traduc'd by making him a Head or Governor of the Church as assuming to himself Ecclesiastick Supremacy A Crime he both abhorr'd and was wholly untainted with 'T is well known he was a great Honourer of Sylvester Pope in his days looking on him as Peters Successor Supreme Head of the Church and he was besides a great enricher no Sacrilegious Robber of it He attempted not to alter any of its Articles but embrac'd its Doctrin and ratified its Conciliary Definitions as Athanasius affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strengthening them by his Imperial Law And he was so far from acting as Head of the Church as he dar'd not to judge a Bishop as Augustin affirms in his 166 Epist Sed quia Constantinus non est ausus de causâ Episcopi judicare eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And Ruffin likewise Lib. 10. Hist Cap. 2. mentions this Answer of his to the Bishops Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos a vobis recte judicamus As for the Objection of Caecilianus I find it fully solved by Card. Perròn in his Third Book to King James Cap. 4. Besides whoever considers his behavior in the Council will not think he acted as Head of the Church For first he would not sit down till he had desired permission of the Bishops which Theodoret expresses thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having ask'd leave of the Bishops to grant it Eusebius thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Valesius thus translates Nec prius sedere sustinuit quam Episcopi id nutu significâssent Theodoret after he had mention'd the Speech he made adds this Haec similia tanquam filius amator pacis Sacerdotibus veluti Patribus offerebat Here he acted as a Son of the Church not as a Head neither did he any thing in the Council by way of defining but by assenting to its Dicisions being present there rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Decency and Order than for any thing else As for the Emperors Justinian Theodosius and Charlemain whom you likewise particularize upon the same account as you did Constantine I must acknowledge that they did make Laws concerning the Affairs of the Church but none of them made any in opposition to it or the Definitions thereof but rather agreeable to them reducing the Churches Faith and Canons for Discipline into Imperial Laws to the intent they might be more obey'd by their Subjects This is no more than what was practis'd by Jovinian who in those great differences of Opinions which were in his days desir'd of the Orthodox Bishops a Platform of the True Faith which Athanasius gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianz. calls it A Royal Gift indeed which he confirm'd by his Imperial Power But to return to the above mention'd Emperors and to see how their Examples will jump with your Case First They made Laws that the Catholick Religion should be observ'd in all their Dominions You make Laws for its subversion altering its Articles and foisting in their room new Negatives in opposition to them They made Laws in defence of the
p. 27 CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation p. 34 CHAP. V. Of Communion in one kind p. 43 CHAP. VI. Concerning Publick Prayers in Latin and of several other Points p. 50 CHAP. VII Concerning Protestants objecting Errors to the Church of Rome The Authors Apologie for himself His Advice to the Protestant Divine with some other Particulars p 56 PART II. CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter p. 67 CHAP. II. The difference betwixt Nathaniel's and St. Peter's Confession of Christ and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum p. 74 CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ p. 86 CHAP. IV. Concerning Christs Reply to St. Peter's Answer Whether the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy be grounded on Scripture Of Christs being the Rock and St. Peter's being the Rock Of St. Austin's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram p. 95 CHAP. V. Concerning St. Peter's Faith or Confession being the Rock And how those Fathers who Interpret that to be the Rock Exclude not his Person p. 109 CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place p. 117 PART III. CHAP. I. Of the Keys That they denote Supreme Power Whether Sobna were High-Priest Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs The differenoe betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood p. 133 CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. p. 144 CHAP. III. Of the Keys In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest That what Christ reply'd was directed immediately to Peter only In what Sense 't was extendible to the Rest How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church receiv'd the Keys in St. Austin's Sense Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys With Advice to him p. 156 CHAP. IV. Of St. Peter's being call'd Satan And of his Denial p. 171 CHAP. V. The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission Why St. Peter was sorry for Christs thrice asking him The Reason of the trine Interrogation That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only p. 176 CHAP. VI. That St. Peter's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation That Peter by vertue of Pasce Oves meas had Vniversal Jurisdiction Several nice Distinctions answered That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor With an Apostrophe to him p. 190 CHAP. I. Containing the Introduction and concerning St. Peter's True Successor SIR I Had no sooner perused the Papers you sent me but by way of a Letter I imparted unto you my Sense of 'em and withal acquainted you that I would answer ' em But having at that time Imbarqu'd my self in a particular Study which my Genius warps to with a stronger propension than to Controversal Points in Divinity I could not prevail with my relucting Fancy to relinquish it and reassume Polemics till I had conducted it to a Completion But I need not make use of any excusive words for this my long silence matters of so high importance as I am now about to handle ought to be maturely perpended and not spurred on with a hurrying precipitancy However if the adjournment of this my rejoynder hath seem'd to you too long protracted I am content to afford you a proportion'd consideration for your forbearance which you shall find lapp'd up in these Papers As for Disputation I am not so much a forreigner to my self as to be ignorant of its being an imployment not only discordant to my Temper but surmounting my Abilities requiring a richer Exchequer of Learning than I can pretend to So I would not have you figure to your self that I catch at the name of a Disputant I yield that Dignity to those whose politer Temper and more embellish'd Parts entitle 'em to that Honor. But if my Talent did excell this way I should very unwillingly grapple with so topping an Antagonist as you are It might seem presumption in me who am but a Laic to enter the List and take up the Gantlet against so eminent a Controvertist But that which makes me more backward herein is my fear you being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of incurring the displeasure of the rest of your Coat who like the Bells in Joves Dodonean-Grove hang so close together that if one be touch'd all of 'em sound this inconvenience I have fully surrounded so I shall not here so much pretend to oppose you as to defend my self which in Honour I am oblig'd to do And I hope hereby I shall not disgust any Ingenuous Person for you having answered me so briskly and so convincingly as you fancy'd I could do no less than try whether your or my Opinion were erroneous and so expiscate the Truth which I find not to float on the Surface of the Well but to dive very deep according to the saying of Pyrrhon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth lies at the bottom It will then be my present employ to examine those Papers which I composed both for the Satisfaction and Defence of my Brother and withal to bring your Answer to a strict Disquisition this is my whole proponiment my pretensions aspiring to no more than what every Christian ought to have a short Scheme and Diagram of his Religion which is what St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a Platform of Sound Doctrine is attainable by one of the Laity if he will bend his Mind to the Acquisition of it and not indulge himself in a lazy desidious acquiescency For as St. Chrysost affirms Serm. de Sigillis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Soul hath in it self the Seed of Divinity Now if it ever were necessary to possess such an abridgment of wholesome Principles 't is much more so in this humorous inquisitive Age which presents us with so many varieties of false Opinions dress'd up in the semblance of Truth that if a discerning Circumspection be not made use of the fallacy may pass
His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow that was Carnal then he call'd for innocent Blood that was Tyrannical his other call was for Church-Goods and Lands that was a Sacrilegious call he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion neither alter'd he any thing of it but to gratifie his Lust and Covetousness Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit praeterquam libidinis luxuriae causâ as Sanders affirms of him And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholick Religion excepting the Title of Head of the Church Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth he had most reason to call for it being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresie contrary to his Fathers Will by the Sacrilegious Protector who did call indeed but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverish'd Church he likewise call'd for false Teachers to dilate the Gangren Martin Bucer a Dominican Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular Ochinus a Capuchin Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati from such we were not like to have Truth who not only fell from the Catholick Church but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency for which by the then establish'd Law they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth she being a Woman and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs and to tamper in Articles of Faith neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes who found the Schism begun and Religion alter'd to their Hands I know very well that in this case Truth is the Pretext but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary This is the usual Mask to hide the ugly Face of a foul Action which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be a plausible glittering Title a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprize but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examin'd we shall find that Revenge Haughtiness impure Flames and desire of Plunder were the Springs that mov'd the first Machin and nothing at all of Truth I do not find that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book he writ in defence of the Roman Church he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism and fell out with the Church rather for its Booty and Prey than for its Doctrine and this was Tyndals Sense of it in his Letter to Frith where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy saith thus Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken little for the Clergies profit in time to come but you must understand that it is not out of pure Heart and for love of Truth but to avenge himself and to eat the Whores Flesh and drink the Marrow of her Bones which because 't is somewhat enigmatically express'd Fox is pleas'd in the Margent thus to expound eating the Whores Flesh is to spoyl the Popes Church only for the Prey and Spoyl thereof not Religion Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein As for the suppression of Monasteries says he we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it Having premis'd thus much I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism even according to your own Distinction and Division of it You say she is not guilty of that Crime because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles Then because she pays Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Thirdly Because she owns the first four General Councils c. This you think enough to clear her of Schism whereas 't is nothing at all to the purpose being a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides the Cushion you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governours so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it You are accus'd by Catholicks of a voluntary departure out of the Catholick Church of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted renouncing his Authority look'd on as of Divine Institution this being your Accusation the Reasons alledg'd for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose Now tho' you come off with a scratch'd Face concerning your Paternal I must needs say you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended you extending your kindness to Lutheran Calvenist or Hugonot and indeed to any Church that will but joyn with you in separating from and defaming the Catholick The next thing I have to do is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism and the Method you take herein I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it For instead of proving Rome separating it self from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion which is properly Schism you accuse her of false Doctrine which Accusation could you be able to make good it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars by which you would prove your self not guilty of Schism The first is because you own and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoyns you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnick or how you can fancy to be united to him when you fall off from his Mystical Body the Church of which he is the Head I know not or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles when they recommend Tradition and you reject it when they tell you that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth and you make her Apostatical I could instance in many particulars how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to but I shall wave them and only tell you that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church yet this is your practice when you dispute with Catholicks but when you have to do with Sectaries who plead Scripture against you then you have recourse to Fathers and Tradition using the same Arguments against them as we do against you It was long ago observ'd by the Fathers That Hereticks were great pretenders to the Scriptures backing their false Opinions with it Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque
Language is evidently to be prov'd out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ and in his Exposition on Psal 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this it might have been begun several hundred Years past for it can be prov'd that this Nation us'd Latin in her Publick Service above Nine hundred Years ago as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae under Archibishop Cuthbert But that which gives me full satisfaction herein is that our Apostle St. Austin who made us Christians taught us to serve God in that Language and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty to serve him in Publick Liturgies not in the Common Profane Vulgar Tongue but in the most Pure Sacred Language but it seems likewise to denote Unity that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church a German if in Italy a Frenchman if in Poland an Englishman if in Spain c. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day and being in one set Language they by vertue of their Catechisms Manuals Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue where the Prayers used by the Church are found and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day have several other Books Expounding the Churches Service to the meanest capacity Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein assisting them by their private Instructions so that the Sense of the Churches Liturgy is well understood even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity But this Practice of the Church in having her Liturgy in Latin being no Article of Belief but rather a Point of Church Discipline and as such not indispensable but changable whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable you who knew 't was in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein should have fairly requested it before you made the breach and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guids It may be the Church to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humour'd you condescending to what might have seem'd most expedient for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship the Church do's not hold it as unlawful but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue as she declares in the Council of Trent The Fifth Point is St. Peters Supremacy This is I must confess an Article which all Catholicks are oblig'd to believe and because it is of high import being the Basis of Papacy I intend to Discouse of it at large and to establish it The Sixth Point c. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy This flows naturally from the Fifth Jure successionis St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction The Seventh is the Popes Infallibility to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible separated from a General Council As for his granting Indulgences to break Gods Law as you accuse him of that is a false Crime of your own hatching for we deny any thing of that Nature knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes when 't is acknowledged as an Article of Catholick Faith I shall Discourse of it in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you or that you will absolve your self of your Allegiance and herein we shall desire no more of you than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes as we did by his Royal Brother and Father Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism for this you have Three strong Reasons The First is because she renounces Communion with other Churches c. As to this I must needs tell you that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her and then falsly to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you 'T is clear enough that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her and so found guilty of Schism and Heresie The Second is Because she denounces all damn'd who submit not to her This you look on as very hard and uncharitable tho' the Church herein is not blamable but those who dis-join themselves from her and stand in opposition to her she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate this she do's out of kindness rathan severity that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition may return to her Bosom and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconcil'd to her Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition cheating their baffled expectancy of their imaginary Paradise If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia Cyprian 62 Epist ad Pomp. and St. August in his 204 Epist to Donatus says Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris The Fathers are so strict herein that they look on that Person who separates from the Catholick Church to be in a damnable state tho' he leads a Religious Devout and Vertuous Life Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus non habet vitam sed ira Dei manet super ipsum says St. Austin to Donatus the Reason is because being separated from the Catholick Church he is consequently separated from Christ who is the Head to that Mystical Body Another Reason is Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur The Third Reason may be Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat as I find it St. Aust Serm. 181. de temp He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism is Because she sends her Emissaries into the known
advance it to its deserved heighth for you are to understand that tho' Peters Confession did exceed that of others by declaring Christ to be Gods Natural Son yet this was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honor but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolick Society illuminating him with a particular Revelation and inspiring him what he should return in answer to Christ his Question or if you please God himself spoke by him making use of his Organs You will find by the following Quotations that the Fathers assert both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was declared Blessed because he spake the Sense of God because he receiv'd what he spake from the Divine Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth who by our Lord was vouchsafed to be proclaimed Blessed because the Father discovered the Revelation to him Origen affirms in his Notes on St. Matthew that St. Peter knowing the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Revelation of the Father had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The highest Blessing And accordingly St. Austin Psalm 138. Jamdudum quia dixerat tu es Christus filius Dei vivi auvit non tibi revelavit Caro Sanguis sed Pater meus qui est in Caelis ideo Petra ideo Beatus Thus you may easily perceive that the sourse of Peters Glory was originated from God who became his Tutor and taught him this Divine and Mystical Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascene calls it And accordingly St. Ambrose Incar Dom. Sacram. says Qui veram generationem loquitur Patris a Patre assumpsit Peter spake it but God suggested it as Damascen affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Doctrin God declar'd to him and he taught it the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor For Christ did not ask the Question as if he were ignorant but as willing to manifest that this was the Doctrin of the Father which did proclaim his true Son to the Church That Peter should be enforc'd to speak and declare what he was taught by the Father He being thus endoctrinated from Heaven promulges this Article of belief and imparts it faithfully to the rest as Epiph. in Ancor observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes a true discovery of Christ who had shaded himself and was pleas'd to pass Incognito under the Title of Son of Man but Peter by a luminous illapse and ray from above finds him out and Proclaims him the Son of God St. Hierom affirms That he had this Revelation from the Holy Ghost but this his Opinion can raise no difference for Opera Sanctissimae Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa his words are these Quod Caro Sanguis revelare non potuit Spiritûs Sancti gratiâ revelatum est And again in another place Ex confessione Petrus sortitur vocabulum quod Revelationem ex Spiritu Sancto habeat cujus filius appellandus alluding to Barjona for in the Hebrew Language Jona signifies Columba the Symbol of the Holy Spirit descending in that shape Hence we may see what a high Favorite this grand Apostle was of every Person of the Blessed Trinity The Father and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles and honor him particularly with a Revelation Christ superadds to this Dignity making him a promise of building his Church on him and of the Donation of the Keys and after this constituting him his Supreme Vicar Pastor and Head of his Vniversal Church as shall hereafter be manifested Now after all this you are pleas'd to pass a slight Complement on St. Peter allowing him to be a forward speaker and therefore styl'd by the Fathers Os Apostolorum and if he were their Mouth you say he surely spoke their Mind To return a fit answer to this I shall first examine in what Sense he may be term'd the Mouth of the Apostles And then I shall enquire whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as he had when he offer'd to solve the propos'd Question First I must acknowledge that I cannot find in any place of the Scripture that the Apostles ever chose or pitch'd upon Peter for their Speaker but spake themselves to Christ when they had a mind to it or saw occasion this I shall prove by several Instances as Matt. 13. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli dicentes edissere nobis hanc parabolam Matt. 14. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli ejus dicentes desertus est locus Matt. 15. Dicunt ei Discipuli ejus unde ergo nobis in deserto panes Matt. 17. Tunc accesserunt Discipuli ad Jesum secreto dicentes c. And John 14. dicit ei Thomas and in the same Chapter Dicit ei Philippus and John 12. Dixit ei Judas Iscariotes and as Nazianzen observes in his 26th Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter asks Christ one Question Philip another Judas this Thomas something else and indeed any other of them did the same By this it clearly appears that they all spoke to our Savior as well as Peter Nay in St. John 13. Peter gets John to speak for him beckoning on him to ask Christ a Question Besides they did not only in their Addresses to Christ speak for themselves but likewise answer'd for themselves when Christ propos'd any Question which they could solve Thus in Matt. 13. 51. Christ asked them if they understood all these things they said to him Yes Lord. Christ asked them How many Loaves they had they answered Seven He asked them Matt. 21. 31. Which of the two Brothers did his Fathers Will they said The first He asked them Whether they wanted any thing when he sent them without Purse Scrip or Shoes they said Nothing And in John 21. he asked them Whether they had any thing to eat they answered him No. These easie Questions you see they all answer'd as well as Peter but when Christ propos'd this difficult Question which we now treat of all the rest were silent and Peter only answer'd it 'T is very observable that tho' it was propos'd to them all in the Plural Number Peter only reply'd to it and in this all the Evangelists as many as mention it agree exactly as you may see in Matt. 16. Mark 8. and Luke 9. whereas in their raccounting other Passages they seem to vary Now 't is easily discernible when Peter speaks for the Rest uttering their common Sentiment by his speaking in the Plural Number as in St. John 6. upon our Saviors asking them Nunquid vos vultis abire Peter answers in the Plural Number in the name of all of them Domine ad quem ibimus Here Theophyl observes that he spake for all of them his Reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he did not say to whom shall I go but to whem shall we go And accordingly St. Austin in his 28th Tract Johan Respondit Petrus
pro omnibus unus pro multis unitas pro universis Domine ad quem ibimus Repellis nos a te da nobis alterum te Peter likewise spake for them all when he said Ecce nos reliquimus omnia secuti sumus te Hence Christ answers to them all in the Plural Number Dico vobis quod vos qui secuti estis me c. And likewise when in John 6. 69 he says We belive and know that thou art Christ the Son of the Living God Here he undertook by answering for the Rest to give an account of their Faith but he committed a great mistake therein for Christ told him that that was not the belief of all of them one of them being a Devil When they were all accused as warm'd with new Wine Peter makes an Apologetical Harangue in the defence and name of them all By these Passages 't is obvious and transparent that Peter herein was the Representative of the Apostolick Society venting in these his Responsals their joint and united Opinions so I shall supersede a further pursuit herein and make it my present business to inform my self in what Sense some of the Fathers entitle him Os Apostolorum whereas indeed they had as much liberty and freedom of speaking to our Saviour as he had The most Radiant and Plausible Opinion amongst them for their dubbing him their Speaker was because they look'd on him as their Prince and thus it may not improperly be said in a subordinate Sense that what was spoken by the chief of the Society was said by the whole Company he representing them all as their Head and Prince and in this Sense it is that Cyril acknowledges Peter to have answered for the Rest as is apparent in several places of his Comments on St. John Princeps Caputque caeterorum primus exclamat Tu es Christus c. Per unum qui praeerat omnes respondent Per Principem consortii haud dubitant exclamare Tu es Christus c. And accordingly 't is very familiar with Chrysost after he has styl'd him The Mouth of the Apostles to join another word with it which denotes him to be chief as in his 55th Hom. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again on the 87th Hom. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was the Prince of the Apostles and Mouth of the Disciples the Supreme top of the Society 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Prince of the Apostolick Quire the Mouth of the Disciples De occursu Domini Thus St. Hierom who acknowledges that Peter did profess this Truth ex persona omnium acknowledges him to be their Head St. Cyprian in his 55th Epistle declares that Peter answered for all of them but confesses he did this as the Representative of the Church Vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce Respondens St. Austin fancies he only answered to preserve Unity Vnus pro multis dedit responsum unitas in multis And in his 118 Tract de Temp. Ideo unus pro omnibus quià unitas in omnibus But in Serm. 13. Evang Matt. He gives Three chief Reasons why Peter is said to be their Speaker First Because he is the Type of the only Church Then because he was the Prince or Chief of the Apostles Lastly Because he was most ardent in his Affection towards Christ Petrus unicae Ecclesiae Typus ipse in ordine Apostolorum primus in Christi amore promtissimus saepe unus respondit pro multis 'T is customary with St. Austin to affirm that Peter represents sometimes the Church sometimes the Apostles the Church he represents as its Head and Rector the Apostles as their Primate as will hereafter be made out and in this Sense he is called their Speaker not as if he were their Atturney or Praeco but their Princeps CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ THe next thing I am oblig'd to Discuss is Whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as St. Peter had when Christ propos'd this Question to them Vos autem quem me dicitis esse So that Peter herein may be said to have spoke but their Sense and that they knew and could have answered the Question as well as he This is in short what you affirm and what is attested by Modern Protestant Writers Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter says thus of him Do's he confess Christ the Son of God Besides that herein he speaks but the Sense of all the Rest this was no more than what others said as well as he Nathaniel expresly told him Thou art the Son of God This is likewise Dr. Barrow's Sense of it only he delivers it more Sportively and Comically in his Treatise of the Supremacy p. 43. But who say ye that I am up starteth Peter he skippeth forth and preventeth the other Apostles not ignorant of the Point they took Jesus for the Messias which according to the common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God they had the same Faith he from a special alacrity of Spirit and expedition in utterance more forward in declaring it This Opinion seem'd to me very thin and silly That Christ should propound a Question to a Dozen Persons which he knew any of them could solve and make honorable Promises only to him that should speak first seem'd to me a childish fancy and beneath the Conceptions of a Doctor this being not to reward an Excellency of Faith but the promptitude of a nimble Tongue which has nothing of Merit in it Having now mentioned the two above cited Doctors I shall add something more to their Quotations Peter is said to answer for the Rest not as if he spake or knew their Opinion on this Point for the Question was ask'd by our Savior on a sudden and it do's no where appear that the Apostles had any Praecedaneous Conference or Consultation about it but because his Answer thereto was Orthodox they were oblig'd to own and embrace it as the Common Belief of the Church And I conceive that upon our Saviors asking the Question the rest being silent and suspending their Answer Peter first spake not their Common but his Particular Sentiment Suam fidem pro se professus est says Jansenius Pro se solo respondit says Abulensis and this he did as one made more knowing than the Rest being instructed in this Mystery by a particular Revelation from the Father He then being more fervid than the Rest inflam'd by this illumination from God and instigated thereto by a Divine impulse hastned with all speed to describe the Son as the Father had instructed him lest any of the Twelve should speak any thing beneath and unworthy of Christ and so be rebuked by him as they often were This is what St. Chrysost means when he says Peter
with varieties of Queries As whether what Christ promised here were promised to Peter or to himself If to Peter whether to his Person or to his Faith and Confession Or if to his Person whether to that alone or equally to his fellow Apostles Or if to all the Apostles whether not to every Scholar and Disciple of Christ Or again whether to Peter personally only or extendible to his Successors These in short are the numerous off-spring of Questions which are rais'd out of the Fruitful Womb of this Text. As to the last of these Queries whether what was said to Peter be extendible to his Roman Successors I find Catholick Writers to hold the Affirmative asserting thereby Papacy to be grounded on Holy Writ and instituted by a Divine Irreversible Sanction of Christ in Peter The Enemies to the Apostolick See eagerly deny and oppose this Opinion Calvin is herein very bold his words are these Quicquid accepit Petrus nihilo magis ad Papam pertinet quam ad Mahometam Nihil Petro datum est his verbis quod non omnibus Evangelii Ministris perinde sit commune Beza is very taunting who tho' he denies the Pope to succeed him as he was called Peter yet he frankly grants his Succession to him as he was called Satan In hoc quidem cognomine successisse Antichristum libens concessero Dr. Stillingfleet is very facetious in his Sermon preach'd on 5. Novemb. So dark and obscure says he so impertinent are the Proofs brought from Scripture of the Popes Supremacy that I may say that Aristotle 's Politick's do prove it much more better than any Text in the Bible Erasmus seems very ambiguous in his Comments on St. Matt. where he plays fast and loose dictum indictum says and unsays First he wonders any should apply those words to the Pope then he says they do undoubtedly belong to him as Prince of Christians his words are these Miror esse qui hunc locum detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem in quem haud dubiè competunt in primis velut in Christianae fidei Principem c. Now that which induces me to believe that if the Church were built on Peter it was likewise built on his Successors is because Christs main design of coming into the World being to purchase to himself a Church which was to continue to the consummation of the World 't is absurd to imagine this Church should have a visible Foundation and Head for Peter's life-time and to have none after him This Power then and Office of his was not conferr'd on his individual Person so as to cease at his expiration but was granted him as the Mystical Head of the whole but so as to be transient and survive in his Successors And indeed this is the chief reason why those that oppose the Power of Peters Successor strike first at his Supremacy knowing that as the Admission of the one infers the other so the supplanting of the one undermines the other Bishop Bramhal in his Schism Guarded having affirm'd That all that Peter had was a beginning of Vnity adds this What Peter had the Pope may pretend a right to That Christ did institute in the Peter the Origin of Unity is acknowledg'd by the Fathers but that this Unity can be preserv'd without a Paramount Authority will never be made out And if Christ made the best provision imaginable for the preservation of Unity Protestants have done all that is possible for its Violation Dr. Whitaker says he would not much value the granting Peters being the Foundation if the Catholicks would not extend it to the Roman Bishops Vt socios collegasque hujus dignitatis Si Petrum says he creatum esse summum Pastorem Ecclesiae concedimus id ipsum mox inferunt similiter ad omnes Petri Successores pertinere This is the sole reason why his Supremacy is so warmly oppos'd for its Enemies know very well if that be granted the Bishops of Rome as his Heirs have a fair Title to it This makes them exert all their cunning endeavours to defraud Peter of it and then deluding themselves with an imaginary Conquest as if they had subverted that Article to infer That if the Original had it not the Derivative could not have it With this false supposition Dr. Hammond imposes on himself and on such as adhere to him What Peter had not himself says he he could not devolve to any of his Successors the Derivative Power in his Successors being like Water that flows from a Spring apt to ascend no higher than the Fountain stood But now if it be made appear that Peter was by Christ invested with the Supremacy it will be evident that the Doctor built a ruinous Fabrick upon a false Foundation But to return to the Point Whether the Bishops of Rome were concern'd in what was said to St. Peter To this I reply That I find several of the Antient Popes to make use of these words as if by vertue of them the Roman See had its Primacy Anaclet says Sacrosancta Romana Apostolica Ecclesia non ab Apostolis sed ab ipso Domino Salvatore nostro Primatum obtinuit dicente Tu es Petrus c. And Gelasius likewise in his Epistle to all Orthodox Bishops Evangelicâ voce Domini Salvatoris nostri Primatum obtinuit dicente Tu es Petrus c. Alexander Calixtus and others have Sayings to the same effect These Men I know are rejected by Protestant Authors as Men partial in their own case as you may see by Dr. Whitaker who delivers his mind very plainly Quid illi dicunt de sua sede nos non moramur erant hi Pontifices Romani quibus insitum est suam sedem quantum possunt ornare extollere ementitis privilegiis This his Sense of their Actions I could by no means embrace for it seem'd to me very uncharitable to imagine that those Religious Bishops so nigh to the Apostolick Age Persons of so strict Piety and unspotted Conversation living under horrid Persecutions should conspire to advance their Sees by false Maxims and forg'd Priviledges But I am more inclinable to believe that those great Priests who were both Bishops and Martyrs sealing their Religion with their Blood were not only extraordinarily illuminated in the knowledge of the Gospel but sincere in their Expositions and Applications of it But besides the Testimonies of these Great Men I find that Athanasius together with the Bishops of Aegypt Thebais and Lybia conven'd in the Alexandrine Council in their Epist to Faelix to speak much to the same effect Romana sedes cui ab ipso Domino potestas ligandi solvendi speciali est privilegio super alios concessa I shall add but one thing more on this matter and that is concerning the Opinion of St. Austin and the Milevitan Council about the Popes Power from whence 't was deriv'd They in a Letter to Innocentius beg of him that he would exert his Pastoral Power in magnis membrorum
Christi periculis by repressing the Hereticks Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrin in this case why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem or to the Primate of Africa The Reason given is because they concluded those Hereticks would with more ease yield to Innocentius as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture Now this Power which they did desire him to shew was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal but his Papal Power for Palestine was no Limb of the Western but Eastern Patriarchate and consequently out of his Jurisdiction as he was the Occidental Patriarch This Power of his which they desire him to make use of they acknowledg'd to be drawn out of the Scripture which cannot be made out but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius who having attributed high things to him proves what he says ex dictis Domini I shall now come to take a view of the words which the Fathers in the Milevitan Council of which Austin was one used to Innocentius which in Epist 92. of St. Austin I find were these Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa perniciosa sentiunt cessuros The words are very plain and clearly discovering their Opinion that his Authority was from Scripture but because this is a truth that must be suppress'd 'T is very pleasant to see how 't is deprav'd by Expositors Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae that is says Chamier Tibi veram doctrinam a Scripturis expromenti But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield by quoting of places out of the Scripture and so confute their Heresies that the African Bishops themselves or any other might have done if they had pleas'd but by vertue of his Supreme Ecclesiastick Authority to which the Fathers imagin'd these Heretick would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture This is the genuin Sense of those words but I shall add no more on this Matter but confine my following Discourse chiefly to St. Peters Supremacy First You must understand that I do believe as firmly as you do that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church the Lapis summus angularis a nullo alio dependens the Lapis fundamentalis cui totum innititur aedificium on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and Peter himself is Mystically superedified as St. Austin affirms Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Christ is the Foundation and unmovable Basis of all containing and strengthening all to the end they be well supported for we are all of us built on him Thus you may perceive that we do not go about to despoil our Savior of his due Honor and invest Peter with it as you traduce us with for if he be the Rock of Church much more Christ is to deny which would be Antichristian But Peter is not hereby excluded notwithstanding this but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ And thus St. Basil Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if Peter be a Rock he is not such a Rock as Christ sed sicut Petrus Petra est whereas Christ is really and of himself a Rock unmoveable Petrus autem propter Petram Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial Absolute and Independent Rock the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity whereas Peter is a Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subordinate Vicarious Ministerial by Commission and Derivation from him laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabrick next to himself as Theophyl observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter This thing belongs to you says he as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church Hence you may easily perceive that things Subordinate combate not one with another but suppose one another therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Foundation are no repugnant duelling Propositions but friendly and compatible And thus as it was observ'd by Cardinal Perron Moses saying That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Aegypt to the Promised Land and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel aliud from Christ but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel alterum not alterius generis as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum for as Salmeron well observ'd Respectu Christi non est fundamentum sed aedificatio nec caput sed membrum praecipuum tamen respectu nostri caput fundamentum This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul or else you must grant a Contradiction For as in one place he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation and that no other can be lay'd He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations Now this difference cannot be reconcil'd but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation Hence 't is that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations Fandamentum Christus primum maximum c. Si Sacramenta cogites Christus sanctus sanctorum si gregem subditum cogites Christus pastor pastorum si fabricam cogites Christus fundamentum fundamentorum Thus it seems to be in the Church as in the State For as in the State notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings and Lord of Lords Yet has he establish'd here on Earth Principacies into whose Hands he has committed the Sword whom we are in duty oblig'd to obey so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church and do's rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes yet has he establish'd a Visible Monarchick Government in it with which he invested St. Peter propagating it to his Successors Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter he himself is the main Basis of the Structure and as Christ is the Head of the Church God is the Head of Christ who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholick Church I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock disrobe not St.
Petrum primum Dei confessorem Ecclesiae fundamentum The next you cite is Theophyl Haec confessio quam confessus es fundamentum erit credentium but that he did not except Peters Person is manifest for speaking of Christ rewarding his Confession he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord recompenseth Peter giving him a great reward promising him the Church should be built on him And on Luke 22. he introduces our Savior calling him The next Rock of the Church after himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find you to cite no more Authors on this Subject so I shall take my leave of your Papers for some short time and make an Excursion to other Writers who quote more of the Fathers on this Point This Digression I hope will be pardonable in me whose design in writing is not only for your confutation but for the investigation of Truth and my own satisfaction I find St. Chrysostom to be much contended for and insisted on by your chiefest Champions as a great Assertor that the Church was built on Peter's Faith and not on his Person insomuch that Dr. Whitaker having cited a Saying out of him countenancing this Opinion drolls upon Card. Bellarmine saying Ecquid tibi Jesuita Chrysostomus arrisit But it is withal to be observ'd that altho' in his 55th Hom. on St. Matth. he makes Confession or Faith to be the Rock yet he do's not seclude Peters Person but attributes as great things to it as to his Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ raises Peters thoughts higher making him a Shepherd Here he acknowledges his Pastoral Power then he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He committed into the Hands of a mortal Man the Power of all things in Heaven After this he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God set Jeremy over one Nation but Peter over all the World Here he confesses his universal Jurisdiction As for his saying in his Serm. de Rentecost That Christ did not build his Church upon a Man but upon Faith I conceive he means there upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare naked Man for we grant that Christ did not build his Church simpliciter super personam Petri ut Hominis nudi sed fide solidâ Christum confitentis as on one irradiated by the illapse of a Celestial Beam darted from God the Father as on one strengthned by the Mission and Power of the Holy Ghost as on one for the Indeficiency of whose Faith Christ compos'd a particular Prayer or to use St. Chrysostom's own words to explain his meaning as on one who was rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immoveable unshaken invariable fix'd firm rooted in Faith harden'd and stronger than a Rock in Faith This Explication must be admitted or else you must accuse him of the greatest incogitancies and contradictions imaginable opposing Chrysostom to Chrysostom I shall now insert as many Sayings of his to Broad-seal and Authenticate what I have here asserted as I have observ'd in perusing his Works manifestly to evince that tho' he interpreted Faith to be the Rock yet he did thereby not intend any injury to Peters Person In his Hom. ad eos qui scandalizati sunt He calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church the chief of the Society of the Disciples On the 50th Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Pillar of the Church the Foundation of Faith the Head of the Apostolick Quire Hom. 4 de verbis Isaiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Foundation of the Church the desperate lover of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the chief of the Apostles the Mouth of the Disciples the Pillar of the Church the Firmitude of Faith the Foundation of Confession the Oecomenical Fisherman In his 9th Hom. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I say Petrus I mean a solid Petra an unmoveable Foundation the Great Apostle the chief of the Disciples Hom. Petri Eliae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Peter the top of the Apostles that immoveable Foundation that solid Rock that Prince of the Church In Psalm 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear what he says to Peter the Pillar the Foundation who therefore was called Peter because he was petrified in Faith Hom. in Petrum Paulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hail Peter the Rock of the Faith the Foundation of Orthodoxy De abnegat Petri. he introduces St. Peter apologizing for himself to Christ Did not I first promulge you crying out Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God wherefore you accepting of my Testimony did declare me Blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and didst entitle me the Rock of the Church saying unto me Thou are Peter c. Hom. 28. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter having said Thou art the Son of the Highest God had this Answer Thou art Peter c. Thus Peter said therefore he was made the Foundation of the Church By these Testimonies it evidently appears what great respect and what signal Honor he ascrib'd to Peters Person calling him not only the Pillar and Foundation of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles And if in some part of his Works out of reverence to his noble Confession he affirms the Church to be built on it and in one Sense it may be said so yet he robs not his Person of this Honor but attributes as much to that as to his Confession I may add more for if he affirms his Confession or Faith to be this Foundation advancing that to so high an eminence he exalts his Person to an higher Battlement and Altitude in making him the Foundation of this Faith by his calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Firmitude of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation of Confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Basis of Orthodoxy I have expatiated my self at large upon this Great Father not only to inform my self of his true and genuine Sense in this Point but also to unveil those Imposturous Gulleries which several misguiding Writers obtrude on their easie Readers under the Umbrage of this eminent Author by depraving his Sense and contorting his meaning which my self have been too sensible of being before I had read him often impos'd on by their plausible Quotations out of him The next Author I shall discuss will be Epiphanius who in his 39th Haeres says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon this Rock of firm Faith I will build my Church Now that he by this Saying do's not exclude Peters Person is evident by his other Sayings as first in his Ancorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it did become the Prince of the Apostles that Solid Rock on which the Church of God was built c. And Adversus Catharos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Peter the highest top of the Apostles who became to us indeed a firm Rock founding the Faith of our Lord. And in the
same place he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The firm Rock of the building the Foundation of the House of God In his Ancorat he says thus of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was assisted by the Father in laying a firm Foundation of Faith And in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all respects Faith was establish'd and confirm'd in him St. Cyril who in his 4th Book de Trinit says Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa firma Discipuli fides c. Do's not take his Faith apart from his Person but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan In Petro tanquam in Petra Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan Nec Simon fore nomen sed Petrum dixit vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam And on the First of St. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon him he destin'd to build his Church My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point whom I find Lib. de Incarnat Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church his words are these Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt sed confessio vincit Infernum These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine he triumphantly cries out Audin ' Jesuita Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered For first no Catholick do's affirm the Church to be built on Peters Flesh so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas do's the Heavens by virtue of a strong robust Back and a pair of broad Shoulders neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul but on his Person consisting of Body and Soul Next I shall prove out of Ambrose that altho ' he calls Faith the Foundation he do's not deny Peters Person to be so likewise as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae And in Lib 4. Lucae Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet turbatur illa quae Judam habet quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est Et de Incarn Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris imo prae caeteris ideo fundamentum dicitur And Lib. 4. De fide Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit St. Basil tho' he is pleas'd to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 2d Isaiae The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock because it is firmly rooted in Faith Yet do's he not offer to depose his Person as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peters Person St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te And in the same place Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata De bono patientiae Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia 52. Epist Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat super quem posuit fundavit Ecclesiam De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit c. Epist 70. Baptisma unum Spiritus Sanctus unus una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis ratione fundata in the same Epistle Tertullian who in his Book de Pudicitia says concerning Peter In ipso Ecclesia extructa is pleas'd to explain himself thus id est per ipsum In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peters Faith but on his Person Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter hoc Petro conferre super te inquit edificabo Ecclesiam meam tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresie of Montanus And in his Prescriptions Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae Petra dicitur And again in Monog Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum Monogamum praesumo per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles whom to lessen and extenuate St. Peters Glory you would equalize with him that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foundations I concede to you Oecomenius on the Apocalyps gives the reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they laid the first ground-work of Faith in Christ And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae They in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World In relation to their Doctrin they were equally Orthodox and Infallible And what concern'd their Writings they being directed and influenc'd by the same Spirit they were alike Canonical and what appertain'd to the Government of all other Christians they were equally Pastors Heads and Rectors And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo as St. Hierom says on all of them Now notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promis'd to build his Church which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever but even of the Apostles themselves If they were Foundations so was St. Peter and the Prophets if they were Foundations they were Sub Petro post Petrum whom our Savior to preserve Unity chose out of the Apostolick Colledge and with his own Hands laid next to himself as Theophyl affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church will appear evident if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the other Apostles till they had learn'd it of him were ignorant of this I have already prov'd Now what our
Isaias 51. I find Abraham likewise to be called a Rock but in a different acceptation for as Hugo Grotius observes Voces per translationem usurpatae aliis aliter aptantur The Jews being there said to be hewn out of his Entrails as Stones are cut out of a Lapidicina or Quarry But in this place Peter is called a Rock in reflection on the Relation which a Rock has with the Foundation of a Building So he here is the only Rock our Savior speaks of on whom he design'd to rear his Church Christ being in this place not so properly call'd its Rock as its Architect not its Foundation as Founder as the word Aedificabo intimates This was excellently well observ'd by Hugo Grotius Paulus se Architectum vocat quod officium Christus hic sibi vendicat Besides 't is most apparent by the foregoing and following words which are directed only to him that Christ is he who here promises to build and Peter is the Person on whom he engag'd himself by Promise to build on and this you must assent to unless you will assign the words such an understanding as contradict the words immediately precedent and subsequent from which only the true genuine Sense is to be extracted The precedent words are Tu es Petrus and the subsequent are tibi dabo c. both which imply Peters Person as the Pronouns tu and tibi evidently evince the intermedial words super hanc Petram must likewise relate to Peter And you may observe that Christ did not say that he would build his Church on a Rock but determinately on this Rock deictically designing Peter vel digito vel notâ thus hanc cannot be referr'd to Christum Petram but to Petrum Petram there being no other Rock mention'd here but he Christ being describ'd here not by the name of Petra but as Filius Dei vivi he then in relation to the Rock is the Builder in reference to the Keys is the Donor This appears more evident by the Conjunction Copulative et Et ego dico tibi c. which connects and knits together the foregoing Speech of our Savior to him otherwise it should have been sed not et Besides pray tell me how were these words Et ego dico tibi spoken to him but by way of explaining the meaning of his new Name for he had a promise of this Name before as appears by the First of St. John Tu vocaberis Cephas and to what purpose was the exact description of his Person which Salmeron says was so precise Vt nec pluribus nec evidentioribus circumstantiis haeredes a Tabellionibus publicis denominantur describuntur quam Petrus hîc whose Son he was and what his Name was if nothing design'd his Person And where is the reward of his Confession which the Fathers unanimously acknowledge he deserv'd and obtain'd if the Church were not built on him Having thus at large discours'd about this Text I shall here subjoin the true Native meaning of our Savior which in short is this Tu es Petrus super te quasi rupem firmam me confitentem aedificabo Ecclesiam meam The words are really plain the Sense of them seems obvious but to see how by Interessed and Heretical Pens they be contorted is portentuous Your last Argument is That if the Church were built on Peter 's Person it must have expir'd when he gave up the Ghost To this I answer That by my saying the Church is built on him and on his Successors I mean him and them to be Supreme Heads of the Church So I shall answer this Objection by way of Question Pray did the Jewish Church expire upon the Death of Aron Did not he survive in the succeeding High-Priests even just thus Peter dies not But lives in his Successors as you may find it in Epist Praeamb Conc. Calch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Considering the B. Peter who lives and presides in his own See And accordingly Conc. Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter who lives judges and defines in his Succescessors Thus 't is likewise good in Law Rex non moritur The End of the Second Part. THE THIRD PART CHAP. I. Of the Keys That they denote Supreme Power Whether Sobna were High-Priest Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs The difference betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood MY ensuing Task will be to treat of the Keys which I design here to do with as much brevity as the avoidance of obscurity will permit I prov'd in my Papers to you that they by a general acceptation were Symbols and Ensigns of Dominion And moreover that by a Scriptural Metaphor in Isaias 22. they denoted Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction To my first Proof you are as silent as a Turkish Mute My second you oppugn But before I write any thing in its defence I must tell you That whether or no our Savior did allude to those words in Isaias 't is easie enough to make out that he by promising them to Peter did destine him to the Supreme Spiritual Power without the assistance of an allusion to this Passage Yet 't is highly probable Christ did allude to them and whosoever doth sedately poise these words Dabo Clavem domûs David dabo tibi Claves will find such a strict adjacency and alliance betwixt them as with good reason he may imagin our Savior did allude to them But to choak up the very Springs of this Cavil I shall now prove the Keys even in the Sense of the New Testament to decypher absolute Dominion and accordingly you will find St. Chrysostom in his 55th Homil. on St. Matthew to affirm that our Savior by vertue of his Promise of the donation of the Keys did not only give St. Peter Power over the whole World but to rise a Key higher even over things in Heaven The Keys likewise in Apocalips 1. vers 10. signifie Supreme Power where our Savior says of himself Habeo Claves mortis inferni By which Phrase absolute dominion over Death and Hell is indigitated and St. Chrysost affirms as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Key of Hell is signified that Christ has power over Life and Death In his Comments on Apoc. Cap. 8. and in the same place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keys are ensigns of Power And thus Oecomenius in his Comment on these words Qui habet Clavem David says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls Power by the name of a Key for he that has Power of shutting and opening is entrusted with the House and this you may more clearly learn in the Gospel by those words which Christ spake to Peter Et dabo tibi Claves c. And a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Keys import Power and in this Sense 't is twice more us'd in that Book as in Cap. 9. v. 1. Data est ei Clavis Putei Abyssi and Cap. 20.
the Old Testament being Imperfect Carnal Umbratick and Prefigurative of one that was Compleat Sublime and Spiritual Hence St. Chrysost Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosie of the Body but to these the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul they bring Fire but these the Holy Ghost And in his Orat. 5. adver Judaeos speaking of the Pontificate of Melchisedeck he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish how much more glorious is the true one Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs is Because by Divine appointment they were Custodes utriusque Tabulae This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversie but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it That by the frequent reading of it he might learn to fear God and keep his Statutes and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword he should defend the true Religion therein concontain'd As for the Interpretation of the Law that belong'd to the High-Priest according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam Legem requirent ex ore ejus They were as Josephus affirms in his Second Book against Appio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges of Controversies And in Deut. 17. Princes were by Gods institution to take the Copy of it from the High-Priest And in the same Chapter in doubtful Cases the Jews were oblig'd to recurr to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations Now whether the Jewish High-Priest were liable to Error as you assert is not worth my present Discussion no Catholick being bound to believe the Popes Infallibility but in Conjunction with a Council But this is clear the Jews were absolutely oblig'd to submit to his determinations under penalty of Death he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS By this you may imagin how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirm'd him Fallible and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions You see our Savior put no such fancies into their Heads but paid much respect to Moses's Chair and tho' he knew that those who sat in it were bad Men yet he says Quaecunque vobis dixerint facite And St. Paul stiles the High-Priest tho' a Persecutor of the Christians Princeps Populi CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes these you assert to be Heads of the Church and your Reason for this Assertion is this That if a King be Head of his Kingdom he is Head of the Church because that is in his Kingdom This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument to prove a Nero Head of the Church because in its Infancy it was in his Dominions But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein and acquaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom and how they may be Supreme Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus non ut Christiani sed ut homines sunt Reges non ut Christiani praesunt sed ut homines politici c. And again Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos ut Christiani sunt homines id est Cives terrenae Civitatis Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum Domestici Dei Ecclesiae membra Hence you may see that a King may be absolute in his Kingdom and yet not be Head of the Church those two Estates residing in two several Persons as being of distinct and different Natures The ones Dominion extending to Mundan Temporal Corruptible things the Body and Goods of Fortune the other reaching to things Spiritual Eternal Celestial to things appertaining to another World and Salvation of the Soul And 't is necessary to have two such distinct Governors The Civil Power to maintain Peace to protect and secure us in our Temporals The Ecclesiastick to teach us the true Worship of God to feed us with Food that perisheth not to direct us in Spirituals to the attainment of Eternal Bliss These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another or any way interfere but by way of abuse but rather assistant to one another being in themselves Friendly and Amicable Hence Samuel having anointed David King kissed him the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement and Accord betwixt these two Governments they are both Independent so as one might not usurp on the other or hinder the other in the due Execution of their Charge The Prince is absolute in Administration of all Civil Matters in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor as Tertull. has it ad Scapul or as Chrysost says in Hom. 2. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth The Priest on the other side presides in Church Government in Spiritual Affairs in Resolutions of Controversies in Faith in Explications of Articles of Belief in Interpretation of Scripture c. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale They are both of Divine Institution The Kingly Power communicated to Princes from Heaven their Charter being deriv'd from God by whom Kings Reign The Priestly Jurisdiction originated from Christ subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power Now to admit and submit to the Sacerdotal Power as Supreme in things meerly and purely Spiritual do's not at all dislustre the Regal Sway nor defringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction the former properly insinuating it self to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses where the Scepter of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion Having premis'd thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes whom you affirm to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs is not deny'd several of them being Arians but that they did it de jure will not be yielded you neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right for 't is evident that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their
Ambr. Lib. 10. Cap. 14. Luc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. 87. Johan He asketh thrice and thrice commands the same things St. Bernard Serm. 76. Cant. calls it in plain terms a Commission Non otiosè toties repetitum est Petre amas me in Commissione Ovium By vertue of this Mandat St. Chrysost in his Comments on St. John do's acknowledge him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have the Government of his Brethren in his Hands And on Acts 1. that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Entrusted by Christ with the Fold And St. Ambrose says that he was made Pastor Dominici Gregis by vertue of these words Thus you may see by the joint suffrages of the Fathers that it was a Trust Mandate or Commission which was given to Peter after Dinner it being customary with our Savior to do great things after Meals as Maldonate observes Res magnas post Prandium aut Coenam fecit Christus After Supper he instituted the B. Eucharist and now having eaten some broil'd Fish with his Disciples being mindful of the Promise he had made to Peter of building his Church on him here he performs it creating him Supreme Head and Pastor of his Church Constituting the Church-Government Monarchical And 't is observable that as in the Promise he calls Peter Simon Barjona so here in the Performance he calls him Simon Jona to shew that the Performance was made to the same Identical Person to whom it was promis'd The Promise was ushered in by an Interrogatory so was the Performance the Promise was made upon his egregious Faith surpassing that of the Rest the Performance was exhibited upon his extraordinary Love surmounting that of the Rest As for the other Apostles they before this had their Warrant and Authority consign'd them when our Savior breath'd on them Commissionating them saying Sicut misit me Pater c. Euntes Docete omnes Nationes c. This was their unlimited Commission whereas the first was confin'd to the lost Sheep of Israel the Samaritans and the Gentiles being excepted This was the General Commission given in Common to the Apostolick Colledge in which every Apostle had an equal share Now Peter besides and above the proportion he had in this Grant besides the Power he had jointly with the Rest receives an Authority proper and peculiar to himself Christ superadding something apart to him above the Rest for the excellency of his Faith and prefulgency of his Love the ultimate end of which Action was to preserve Unity not only in Church-Government but likewise in Faith Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem süam parem tribuat potestatem says St. Cyprian sicut misit me c. tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipiente suâ authoritate disposuit I shall conclude this Point with a Saying of Jansenius Cum primâ apparitione Apostolis parem contulit potestatem c. nunc ad tollendum Schisma ut Ecclesia una monstretur unus omnibus praeficitur But now after all this you say 't is a sign it was an Exhortation because Peter was sorry for its Tergemination which he would not have been at the receipt of a Commission This your Reason seems to me very pleasant and divertive I perceive you would have had him very debonair at this his Investiture as you would be upon obtaining a Fat and Unctious Benefice But first I must tell you he had little Reason to be very chearly for Christ had no sooner given him his Commission but he allay'd his Joy by foretelling him his Crucifixion But I find you to be guilty of a wide mistake concerning the Original of his Sorrow which I conceive to be deriv'd from Springs very distant from your Apprehensions of it for Petrus mirabatur cum quodam taedio audiebat quoerentem quem nover at omnia scientem August de Temp. 149. Serm. Contristatus est quod saepe interrogatus est ab eo qui sciret quod interrogabat Serm. 50. in Evang. Johan And again Contristatus est Petrus quod eum tertio interrogat quasi ille qui vidit conscientiam negationis non videbat fidem confitentis St. Ambrose glosses much to the same effect Petrus doluit quia interrogatus est Amas me Quod enim manifestum erat dolebat quasi incognitum quaeri Lucae Lib. 6. 7. And on the last Chapter of Luke he says Contristatur Petrus quia tertio interrogatur Amas me is enim interrogatur de quo dubitatur And on Psal 90. enarrat Taedio affectus Petrus quasi dubitaret Dominus noster de amore ejus This may suffice to satisfie you concerning the true Reason of his sorrow One thing I shall add more on this matter and that is concerning Dr. Barrow who affirms the words Pasce Oves meas to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Renovation of the Apostolate formerly granted as if by these words he had recover'd it again after he was fallen from it by his denyal That the words did include his restauration to his Apostleship I grant but that they imply'd no more than that which the Doctor would from thence infer I deny And to make this fully understood I will suppose some Favourite of a Prince who had a place at Court through some misdemeanor incurring his Masters Displeasure to lose it and after the decurrence of some time to be so happy as by regaining his Princes Favor to be promoted to a higher Office than before This Favourite may be said to have acquir'd his former place tho' indeed he be advanc'd above it to a higher Dignity The same was Peters Case who after his Fall purchasing Christ's Favor by a speedy Repentance was not only re-admitted 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 is the Real Sense of the Fathers herein Post lacrymas Pastor assumptus est alios regendos accipit qui seipsum prius non regerat says St. Ambrose de Paenitentia Petri. And Enarrat Psa 43. Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus à Diabolo est Majorem gratiam reperit quam amisit tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem accipit says St. Austin Fest Cath. Petri. And Arnobius on Psal 138. says Major gradus redditur ploranti quam aufertur neganti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Lib. 6 contra Judaeos Peter after that heinous denial of his because he presently bethought himself of his Sin and wept bitterly 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 The last thing you take notice of on this Matter is That I said Pasce Oves meas was spoken to Peter thrice upon his trine Negation but you suppose I will not say he merited it for his threefold denial This supposition of yours might very well have been omitted as
unnecessary and I may very well wave it as undeserving any notice should be taken of it what I said was this That our Savior asked Peter thrice suitable to his trine denial as St. Austin observ'd Additur trinae negationi trina confessio whether he lov'd him c. This seems not at all amiss or obnoxious to any exception but you had a mind to carp at every thing Now tho' such parvitudes as these are not worth the defending yet because you Cavil at them I shall not desert them as undefensible for I believe I can produce better Authority to maintain them than you can to impugn them Ter me negasti timendo Ter me confitere amando Ambros Psal 90. Enarrat And in his Apol. David Cap. 9. Vt trinae lapsum negationis professio Charitatis toties repetita deleret St. Austin Serm. 50. Secund. Johan Vt trinâ confessione amoris deleret trinum peccatum negationis Theophyl on John 21. gives two Reasons of our Saviors asking thrice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both manifesting what a great care he took of the Faithful and withall by a trine Interrogation and Confession he cures his trine Negation The next that encounters my view is your Quotation out of St. Austin by which I perceive that the drift and scope of your design is to prove the words Pasce Oves meas to be spoken to the Rest as well as to Peter This is the White at which you level the words are these Cum illi dicitur ad omnes dicitur si amas me pasce c. This is all you quote but upon examining the place out of which these words were taken I find the foregoing words to be these Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae Claves Regni Caelorum datae sunt cum Petro datae sunt cum ei dicitur omnibus dicitur Pasce Oves meas August de Agone Christianâ Here you are to understand that in his Judgment Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholick Church and that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him namely as to its Head Primate and Rector as I have already prov'd out of his Writings In this only Sense I have already fully prov'd that those words which were originally and immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to the Rest they being all Epitomiz'd and compriz'd in him as their Chief In this Acceptation I grant that Pasce Oves meas might be spoken to all the Disciples and in no other aspect Now this do's not at all hinder but that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely and this is acknowledg'd by St. Austin himself in his Book de Pastoribus where speaking of our Savior Tunc ideo commendavit Oves quia invenit Petrum imo vero in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit multi erant Apostoli uni dicitur Pasce Oves meas And again in the same Book Petro dixerat Pasce Oves meas quid ergo faciemus Cum Petro commendantur Oves non ibi dixit Dominus Ego pascam Oves meas non tu sed Petre Amas me Pasce Oves meas And again Sic certe a Domino ad Beatum Petrum dicitur Petre Amas me ille tu scis Domine quia amo te Et cum tertio fuisset interrogatus trinâ responsione fuisset subsecutus repetitum est a Domino tertiò Pasce Oves meas Your following attempt is to prove those words to be spoken to all Pastors as well as to Peter by your Saying cited out of St. Basil Consequenter omnibus Pastoribus dictum est c. But this your Quotation do's you no Service at all it amounting to no more than what I frankly grant for I do as well as you believe the words to be consequently derivatively extensively spoken to every Pastor all being Figured and Represented in the Supreme Pastor St. Peter as Austin avouches in festo Petri Pauli In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorum sed bonorum Now the most inferior Pastor is as really one as a Bishop tho' his Sheep be not so numerous nor his Fold so large and I grant that these words were in a subordinate secondary Sense spoken not only to the other Apostles but to all lawful Pastors for Peter tho' he were the Chief was not the Sole Pastor Pastor bonus Christus quid Petrus Nonne Pastor bonus Quid Paulus quid caeteri Apostoli quid Beati Episcopi Martyres quid Sanctus Cyprianus nonne omnes Pastores boni non mercenarii as St. August affirms in his 50th Serm. Evang. Johan Neither did he feed the Flock alone but had the Apostles his Coadjutors and Compresbyters whom he exhorts to feed the Flock not the Universal but the Particular one Pascite gregem qui in vobis the Prerogative of feeding the Universal Church including both the Apostles and other Christians being delegated to Peter only as Supreme Pastor of the Church I therefore affirm that the words were principally immediately and initially spoken to him alone but I acknowledge likewise that in a Proportion'd Adequate Sense In quodam Modo they suit and quadrate with all true Pastors For as Salmeron affirms Quod summo Pastori dicitur id suo modo proportione servatâ aliis minoribus Pastoribus dictum est Because they who are called as Fellow-Labourers into part of the Pastoral Function and Solicitude are to exscribe and imitate the Form that Peter used in Feeding Loving Cherishing and Defending his Flock But I shall now come to your Quotation out of St. Basil which I found to be in his Book de Vita solit Cap. 23. and upon my examining it taking in those words which were Introductive to it I discover'd it to be the most destructive and fatal thing to your purpose that was imaginable the previous words which you suppress'd making wholly against you they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a Governor is nothing else but one that represents the person of our Savior and this we are taught by Christ constituting Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself for he says Peter do yon love me more than these Feed my Sheep Here St. Basil do's remarkably affirm what I go about to prove namely That Christ created Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself by vertue of these words But what shall I think of your concealing these Lines Certainly the Action was unworthy and disingenuous especially in you who pretend so much to Truth and Honest dealings and you could herein have no Reverence for the Author or Kindness for me whom by such deeds you cannot pretend to instruct but impose on I do not wonder to see the Fathers so copiously quoted by you now I see 't is your practice to Cull out here and there a Line without perpending its relation either to the foregoing or following Matter