find in the story of Cornelius Acts 10. He is called the Rock because he first laid the Foundations of Faith among the Gentiles ‖ Petra enim dicitur eo quod primus in nationibus fidei fundamenta posuerit says an antient Author in a Homily father'd on St. Ambrose In the remainder of this Chapter which is spent in answering several Objections made by his Adversary I find nothing but what either needs no answer or what hath been already answered Though I confess there are many things that deserve an Asterisk particularly the first part of his Answer to this Question What Inconvenience would arise from expounding this Rock to be Christ To this saith he I answer Though I grant Christ to be called a Rock yet it is very irrational to interpret the word ROCK of Christ wheresoever you find it express'd in Scripture our Saviour being not really a Rock but only call'd so by a metaphorical locution * Pag. 129. This he says is observed by St. Austin A notable Observation CHAP. III. I Think I have said enough to satisfy every impartial considering Reader that St. Peter's Supremacy is not founded upon this Rock and therefore must fall to the Ground unless some other Foundation be found to support it I proceed therefore to the other Promise here made And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth c. upon which they also tell us this vast Fabrick is solidly superstructed Now the whole of their Discourse from hence that is pertinent to the present Question may be reduc'd to these four Propositions 1. That this Promise of the Keys was made to Peter alone II. That he alone immediately receiv'd them and the other Apostles derivatively from him III. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was inferior and subordinate to a higher Degree of it in St. Peter IV. That by the Keys thus promised to and received by St. Peter is meant the supreme Power of governing the Church Proposition I. This Promise saith Dr. G. our Saviour made to St. Peter and to him alone †Serm of St. Peter p. 28. And you see saith the Discussor Christ addresses his Reply to Peter only the Words Tu and Tibi shutting out all Partnership ‖ St. Peter 's Supremacy p. 18. To which it will be sufficient to return these two things 1. Suppose the Reply addressed to Peter only and the Promise here made to him alone doth it hence follow that Christ intended to give the thing promised to none else Had Christ said to Peter to thee only will I give the Keys this would have followed but it no way follows from Christ's saying only to him I will give thee the Keys From the Promise made to him in particular it only follows that he in particular should have them not that none others should have them besides him 2. Nothing can be more plain than that at another time Christ made the same Promise to all the Apostles indefinitely Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven ‖ Matth. 18. 18. But says the Doctor however we read that the Power of binding and loosing which is an Effect of the Keys was promised to all the Apostles in common Matth. 18. 18. yet it was not till after the Keys had been promised to Peter Matth. 16. 19 * Pag. 29. What then does before or after make any Difference in the Promise it self If the King promise to day a Commission to one Man in particular and promise to morrow the same Commission to him and ten more together with him hath that one any Power given him over the other ten by having his Commission first promised him But it is not any where read in Scripture that the KEYS THEMSELVES the proper TOKEN and BADGE of the supreme Stewardship over the Church were promised to the rest but to PETER alone But doth not the Power suppose the Badge Or if it doth not is there any need of it Since it is not the Badge but the Office alone that we are concerned for †See Dr. Hammond 's Answ to Schism disarm'd Sect. 7. n. 12 13 14. If it be granted that all the rest have equal Power with Peter let Peter by my consent have the sole Honour of carrying the Keys And yet doth he not say just before That the Power of binding and loosing which is an effect of the Keys is promised to all the Apostles And if so then surely the Keys themselves since the effect ever presupposes the Cause But the truth is as loosing and binding are the effect of the Keys so the Power of loosing and binding are the Keys themselves The Church which is founded in Christ saith St. Austin received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Peter that is the Power of binding and loosing Sins ‖ Ecclesia ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab eo regni Caelorum accepit id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In Evang. Johannis Tractat 124. This is the very definition your Schoolmen give of them The Power of binding and loosing says Aquinas is call'd the Key * Clavis dicitur potestas ligandi solvendi Aquin. suppl Qu. 17. Art. 2. The spiritual Key says Biel is thus described It is the Power of judging that is of loosing and binding by which an Ecclesiastical Judg ought to receive those that are worthy and exclude those that are unworthy from the Kingdom of God †Sic describitur clavis spiritualis est potestas judicandi id est solvendi ligandi c. Eiel in quartum Sentent Dist 18. Qu. 1. And therefere to suppose that Christ promises the power of binding and loosing and not the Keys is to suppose a contradiction This therefore is not to argue like Dr. G. though it very well becomes the Discussor who also talks at the same rate It cannot says he be prov'd out of the Scripture that the Keys in EXPRESS WORDS were given to any but to him viz. Peter ‖ Peter's Supremacy p. 160. in express words It may then it seems be proved by Consequence and is not that as well But unless as he goes on you can shew me some place in the New Testament where our Saviour saith to his Disciples JOYNTLY IWILL GIVE YOV THE KEYS * The Discussor's word are conjunctim Vobis dabo claves or to any of them in particular I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS †His words are particulatim tibi dabo claves he hath the best Plea and Title to them The best Plea this is poor and sneaking a plain giving up the cause for should he have the best Plea that doth not hinder but they may have a good Plea since his Title is no way inconsistent with theirs it
Patre accepisset tantara illis dare c. The Cardinal of Cusa says We know that Peter received no more Power from Christ than the other Apostles for nothing was spoken to Peter which was not also spoken to the others as it was said to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind And therefore we rightly say that all the Apostles were equal in Power †Scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis Christo a recepit aliis Apostolis Nihil enim dâ—ctum est ad Petrum quod etiam aliis dictum non sit Nonne sicut Petro dictum est quodcunque super terram ita aliis quodcunque ligaveritis c. De Concord Cath. 2. 13. Yea Cardinal Bellarmine himself having cited the Words of St. Cyprian makes this Inference from them Where you see that the same is given to the Apostles by these Words I SEND YOV which was promised to Peter by that saying I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS and afterward exhibited by that FEED MY SHEEP But it is manifest that by these Words I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS and by these FEED MY SHEEP the fullest Jurisdiction is to be understood ‖ Ubi vides idem dari Apostolis per illa verba Ego mitto vos quod Petro fuerat promissum per illud Tibi dabo claves et postea exhibitum per illud pasce oves c. Lib. 4. De Rom. Pontif. c. 23. What can be more plainly expressed than that the Power convey'd to the Apostles by these Words I send you was equal to that promised to Peter in the Promise of the Keys I know Bellaamine tells us that he hath elsewhere shew'd that this is no Impediment to Peter's Primacy what not to his Primacy of Power Can they all be equal in Power and yet Peter be their Superiour But how doth Bellarmine reconcile this Contradiction We confess says he the Apostles were equal in Apostolical Power and had in all things the same Authority over Christian People but they were not equal among themselves * Fatemur enim Apostolos suisse pares in Apostolica Potestate habuisse in populos Christianos eandem omnino authoritatem sed non fuisse pares inter se De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 12. Which is in effect the same with what the Discussor says In this their Apostolical Commission they were all equal but this was granted them not in reference to one another but in reference to the whole World of which they were all Heads and Princes †Pag. 168. But is not this to solve one Contradiction by another They were all equal in Apostolical Power and the Apostolical Power as he just before says was summa Potestas the highest Power and contained all Ecclesiastical Power and yet Peter was higher in Power than they and had some Power which they had not that is they all had and had not the highest Power they all had and had not all Ecclesiastical Power But notwithstanding all that hath been said to the contrary the Fathers if we may take the Discussor's Word are plainly on his side and if we will not credit his Word he has produc'd their own Words to assure us that they are so I shall therefore examin the Testimonies produc'd having first premised these two things as preparatory thereunto 1. That the Question now is not Whether the Keys were given to Peter in particular or after a particularising manner Or whether they were given to him alone when our Saviour said I will give thee the Keys c. But supposing them now given to the other Apostles whether they were given to Peter in another sense or in a sublimer and compleater degree as the Discussor speaks than they were given to the other Apostles 2. We shall have great reason to suspect that this Gentleman misrepresents the Sense of the Fathers if we do but consider that his Friend Maldonat who was a little better acquainted with their Writings than he is tells us that he saw all Authors except Origen understood the Words spoken to Peter Matth. 16. 19. in the same sense with those spoken to Peter and the rest of the Apostles jointly Matth. 18. 18. And by consequence they understood the Keys to be given in the same sense and amplitude to the rest of the Apostles as to Peter ‖ Nec enim codem sensu quo Petro atque aliis Apostolis dictum interpretor Quodcunque solvetis super Terram erit solutum in Caelis etsi video omnes Auctores praeter Origenem in cadem fuisse sententia Mald. in Matth. 16. 19. Which being premised I shall now examine the Testimonies themselves He begins with Origen from whom he cites two Passages The first of which he so grosly abuses that had he to that one line he quotes added the three next every Reader would have seen that it is directly contrary to that for the proof of which he brings it The Words he quotes are these An soli Petro dantur a Christo claves How from hence he can infer that Origen acknowledges Peter more excelling in the power of the Keys than the other Apostles is past my understanding But if to these we add the words following the whole Passage is this Were the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given by Christ to Peter only and shall no other Saint receive them But if that which is said I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven be common also to the rest why are not all those things which are spoken before and which follow common to them all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Comment in Mat. Tom. 12. p. 275. In which Words it is plain that as Origen denies the Keys to be given to Peter only so in suposing that very Promise I will give thee the Keys to be common to the rest he must of necessity suppose that the Keys were given to the rest in the same Degree they were to Peter In the other Passage I grant that Origen makes no small difference between the Promise made to Peter Matth. 16. and that made to the Disciples Matth. 18. That to Peter were given the Keys not of ONE HEAVEN but of MANY HEAVENS that whatsoever he should bind on Earth should be bound not in ONE HEAVEN but in ALL THE HEAVENS but to them he says that they should bind and loose not in the HEAVENS as PETER but in ONE HEAVEN †Non ergo modica differentia est quod Petro quidem datae sunt claves non unius Caeli sed multorum Caelorum c. Tractat. 6. in Matth. The Reason why he made this Difference was because the Word is used in the plural Number in the first place ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular in the second * But is not Maldonate himself asham'd of this and does he not say that he lost the Truth in proving it too subtilly †Notavit hoc ipsum Origegenes sed veram solidamque
Domini by an error of the Press I suppose put for Serm. 13. which is as little to the purpose as either of the former and shall desire the Discussor to resolve me these two Questions 1. Whether every one of the Apostles received the Keys as Head of the Church because they are all by St. Austin joined with Peter in representing the Church For having quoted the Words of our Saviour As my Father sent me so send I you Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. He adds If therefore they did bear the person of the Church and so this was said to them as if it was said to the Church it self ‖ Sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos ergo si personam gerebant Ecclesiae sic eis hoc dictum est tanquam ipsi Ecclesiae diceretur c. De Baptismo Contr. Donatist l. 3. c. 18. 2. Whether St. John was the Primate of the Church Triumphant The ground of the Query is because St. Austin in this same Tractat quoted by the Discussor makes St. John the Figure of the State of the Church in Heaven as he does St. Peter of the State of the Church on Earth But it tends much to Peter 's Glory that in St. Austin 's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he How much soever it may otherwise tend to his Glory nothing of Dominion can be hence inferred Nor is this Glory so appropriated by Austin to Peter but it is by him ascrib'd to the other Apostles together with him as I have shewed before But how bright soever this Glory may be in it self the Discussor has here drawn a Vail over it by making him who before received the Keys as their Prince to receive them now as their Proxy for so he adds in the same Page He received them immediately They received them by a Proxy c. Now a Proxy as such hath not one Ray of Claritude by which he outshines those whose Proxy he is When Optatus says That he alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be COMMUNICATED to the rest he doth not mean to be communicated by him but by Christ as a Roman Doctor expounds it * Et claves regni Coelorum communicandas caeteris id est quas Christus commendaturus erat caeteris Du Pin. Dissertat 4. c. 1. And the preference Optatus there gives to him consists in this that he alone received the Promise first which was afterwards perform'd to all the rest As to what he adds concerning Matth. 18. 18. That the Fathers expound it of fraternal Correption If he mean all or the greater number of the Fathers it shews either his Ignorance or his Insincerity Of those four he mentions Origen I grant does so Chrysostom Maldonat says speaks obscurely that he knows not whether he was of this opinion or not but in another place he as plainly as words can make it applies this Text to the Apostles only †De utilitat Lect. Script Tom. 5. p. 590. Edit Front. Duc. St. Jerom he palpably abuses by quoting his Words on ver 16. whereas he expresly expounds ver 18. of the Power given to the Church of binding and loosing The words cited from St. Ambrose I know not where to find but I suspect he has dealt as fairly with him as with St. Jerom. The remainder of this Chapter is either ridiculous or impertinent except that he says St. Jerom in his Comments on Matth. 16. speaking of the Power of Keys acknowledges Peter to have received it SPECIATIM Which is not I grant impertinent but that which is much worse a downright Falsity For in his Comments upon that Chapter the word Speciatim is not to be found nor any other of a like import relating to St. Peter Nor yet those Words he quotes as following after it Proposition IV. That by the Keys promised and given to PETER is meant the supreme Power of governing the Vniversal Church ‖ P. 133 134. This will be dispatched in a word If he meant Supreme in a negative sense viz. that Power than which there is none in the Church higher it would be true but then in this sense Supreme Power was given to every Apostle But as he means thereby a Power superior to that of the other Apostles by which Peter was constituted their Governour so it is false For since as has been already proved and as the Sorbonist before-quoted affirms * Primum est Petro promissas esse eas ipsas claves quae postea caeteris concessae sunt ac proinde per claves hic non intelligi ut vult Bellarminus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam Ellies du Pin. dissertat 4. c. 1. p. 309. the very same Keys promised to Peter were afterward granted to the rest therefore by the Keys cannot be here understood the supreme Power over the Whole Church What he produces for proof is of no force St. Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour by virtue of his Promise of the Donation of the Keys did not only give S. Peter Power over the whole World but to rise a Key higher EVEN OVER THINGS IN HEAVEN †Pag. 134. And S. Chrysostom also says of S. Paul That he took upon him the whole World And of all the Apostles in common That not Nations and divers Cities but the World was committed to them as we have before heard And to rise to the higher Key Did not Christ give to the other Apostles the same power over things in Heaven when he said to them Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in HEAVEN And does not the same Chrysostom speaking of these Words Matth. 18. 18. say of all the Apostles They sitting upon Earth give Sentence and the virtue of their Sentence passes to the Heavens As Emperors sitting in some one City give Sentence and constitute Laws but the Power of their Sentences and Laws runs through all the World so the Apostles sitting in some one place ordained these things but the Power of their Laws and Bonds did not pass through the World only but ascended to the very Height of the Heavens ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. De Utilitat Lect. Script p. 590 591. He adds the Keys likewise Apoc. 1. 10. signifie supreme Power where our Saviour says of himself I have the Keys of Death and of Hell by which Phrase absolute Dominion over Death and Hell are indigitated * Pag. 134. But were these Keys in St. Peter's keeping Had he absolute power of raising the Dead No he will say he doth not quote it to this purpose but only to shew that the Keys in this place signify absolute Dominion over that which is spoken of Suppose they do so here what then Do the Keys signify as much when attributed to Peter as when attributed to Christ Is there no difference between the Keys in the Hands of the Master of the Family and
Scripture are not so full but he might have been content to have taken to their assistance those other Scripture-proofs produc'd to this purpose by some of their learned Men such as Christ paid Tribute only for himself and Peter Peter alone cast himself into the Sea Peter drew the Net to the shore full of great Fishes Christ said to Peter SIMON SLEEPEST THOV 2. That he hath not steered his Course by the unerring Pharo's of Antiquity as he promised †Pag. 3. but by new Lights which have led him quite contrary to that Course the Antients steered No place therefore is left for the second Inquiry viz. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeeded PETER in this Supremacy since Peter can be succeeded by none in that which he never had Should it indeed be granted that Peter was invested with it it will not follow that the Pope has it unless it be proved first that Peter was in a strict and proper sense Bishop of Rome and 2. That all the Power Peter was invested with was to descend to his Roman Successors neither of which will be ever proved But now if Peter was never possess'd of such Supremacy himself admit he was Bishop of Rome and that whatsoever Power he had was derived to his Roman Successors no such Supremacy could be derived from him to them It would be therefore an idle thing to insist upon this especially considering that the Discussor himself hath not done so but spoken of it only occasionally and out of place intending I presume to make this the main Subject of his second Book which he has promised But if he resolve to be as good as his word and to oblige us with another of his Books let him first establish Peter's Supremacy upon a more solid Foundation than he has yet done otherwise he will but render himself the more ridiculous in endeavouring to erect the Pope's Supremacy upon it FINIS The CONTENTS CHAP. I. VVHat Supremacy is contended for and what the Discussor supposes as the Foundation of it Sect. 1. 1. That the rest of the Apostles were not ignorant of Christ's Divinitty when Peter made this Confession Thou art Christ c.   This proved  1. By Scripture pag. 7. 2. By what the Discussor himself grants viz. 1. That John the Baptist knew it pag. 9. 2. That the Devils knew it pag. 12. 3. By the Testimonies of the Fathers 13.  A compendious way of reconciling Hereticks 18.  Jansenius and Tostatus misrepresented 19.  Four Questions answered 20. 4. By the Testimonies of those Modern Romanists the Discussor quotes for the contrary 21 c. Sect. 2. 2. That Peter did not attain to this knowledg by a peculiar Revelation 26.  The Testimonies of the Fathers alledg'd to this purpose shew'd to be insignificant 27. CHAP. II. These words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock c. examined Sect. 1. Christ the Primary Foundation of the Church 30. How impertinently the Discussor quotes the Fathers ibid. The Vanity of his critical Observation from St. Basil St. Ambrose and St. Jerom 32. Several places of St. Austin answer'd and the true sense of them given 33 34. Sect. 2. Whether those Fathers who assert St. Peter's Faith to be the Rock do thereby exclude his Person pag. 38. A Passage of Theophylact answer'd 39. Another of St. Chrysostom 40. Sect. 3. Whether St. Peter had any Pre-eminece as he is the Foundation of the Church above the rest of the Apostles 42. The Testimonies produc'd by Dr. Tho. G. to prove the Church more eminently built on St. Peter examin'd and shew'd to import no such thing 45 c. In what sense St. Jerom calls St. Peter the Head and Prince of the Apostles 46 Of the reason why Christ gave him the Name Peter 49. The difference the Discussor makes between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew'd to be ridiculous 50 51. That St. Peter's Primacy was that of Order or Place only 55 56. The Sayings of the Fathers produc'd by the Discussor to prove the Church more eminently built on St. Peter shew'd to be impertinent pag. 59. Especially those of St. Jerom pag. 60. and St. Cyprian 64. In what respects the Church may be truly said to be built more eminently on St. Peter 68. CHAP. III. Their whole Discourse upon these words I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. reduc'd to four Propositions 70. Prop. 1. That the promise of the Keys was made to Peter alone Two things return'd in answer to it 71.  What meant by the Keys what difference between them and Binding and Loosing 72. Prop. 2. That Peter receiv'd the Keys immediately from Christ but the other Apostles from or by St. Peter confuted by Scripture and by four Arguments from Bellarmin pag. 76 77. Prop. 3. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was subordinate to a higher degree of it in St. Peter The contrary prov'd from that place where the Power of the Keys before promised was actually given viz. John 20 21 22 23. 1. That the Power of the Keys was here given the Romanists must grant  1. Because this is expresly taught by the Fathers 79. 2. Because it is taught by the Roman Catechism and the Council of Trent 80. 2. That the Power was equally given to Peter and the other Apostles is clear'd from  1. The words themselves 81. 2. The Judgment of the Fathers upon them 82. 3. The Concession of many learned Men of the Church of Rome 83.  The Testimonies of the Fathers cited by the Discussor viz. of Origen St. Hilary Ambrose Cyril Basil Chrysostom Cyprian Bede and St. Austin examin'd and answer'd 85 c.  Whether the Fathers expound Matth. 18. 18. of Fraternal Correption 95. Prop. 4. That by the Keys promised and given to Peter is meant the Supreme Power of governing the Church ibid.  His Proof shew'd to be of no force pag. 96.  A twofold difference between the Keys in the hands of the Master of the Family and in the hands of his Steward 79. CHAP. IV. Sect. 1. Of these words Feed my Sheep 99. The sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 100. Whether these Words contain a Commission 102. The Father did not think that Peter was by them exalted to a higher degree of Power than he had before 105. A Quotation out of St. Austin and another out of St. Basil vindicated 107. The vanity of his Arguments hence to prove Peter's Supream Pastorship 109. Why Christ's Interrogation was of a greater degree of Love 110. The folly of making Oves meas because indefinite to include the Apostles exposed by several Questions 112. The Testimonies of Bernard St. Chrysostom and Theophylact answer'd 113 114 c. Not one of those Fathers say the whole Flock was recommended to St. Peter whom the Discussor quotes as saying so 120. Several Remarks from his Quotations which shew his Ignorance or Insincerity 120 121. Those Fathers which say the Flock was committed to Peter meant to more to include the other Apostles than Peter himself 122. All the Apostles were Christ's Vicars 124. ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. for Treaties read Treatise P. 33. Marg. l. 1. f. ejam r. elâ—am P. 36. l. 21. f. Pâ—trum r. Patrum P. 40. l. 7. f. Barronius r. Baronius P. 45. l. 10. f. put r. but. P. 47. l. 27. after Reasoning put a Comma P. 50. l. 22. f. evaned r. evanid P. 62. l. 21. f. luxid r. lurid P. 55. Marg. l. 5. f. rogâ—ntè r. royantè l. 8. f. oùt r. où f. Moyers r. Moyens P. 72. l. 30. after Peter put a Period and begin the next word with a Capital P. 79. l. 2. r. Apostles P. 83. Marg. l. 20. put a before Christo P. 85. Marg. f. solvetis r. solveris P. 89. l. 18. f. of r. ob P. 99. after l. 28. put Sect. 1. P. 104. l. 22. r. reckon'd for a Father P. 105. l. 25. r. se ipse Other literal Errors and Mispointings the Reader is desired to correct
Mystery but knew it as well as St. Peter will be sufficiently cleared First By Scripture Secondly By what the Discussor himself grants Thirdly By the Testimonies of the Antients And as an unanswerable Argument ad hominem Fourthly By the Testimonies of those modern Romanists he quotes for the contrary First By Scripture Of those many Texts that offer themselves one may suffice it being so plain and full to the purpose Many of Christ's Disciples being offended at his Doctrine they thereupon forsook him upon this he said to the twelve Will ye also go back The Question was propounded not to Peter only but to all the twelve though Peter alone returned the Answer as he did to this other Question To whom shall we go Thou hast the Words of eternal Life AND WE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BELIEVE AND HAVE KNOWN THAT THOV ART THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD †John 6. 69. The Discussor grants that St. Peter here undertook by answering for the rest to give an account of their Faith ‖ Pag. 83. Now this Confession is express'd in the very same Words with that under debate nor doth the Discussor himself deny it to be of the same import And that of these two Confessions this in which he grants St. Peter spake in the Name of them all was first in time Dr. G. hath proved to be manifestly evinced from the series of the Acts of our Saviour's Life recorded by the Evangelists * Serm. of St. Pet. p. 10. And that the said Doctor took this Confession before-made to signify as much as this latter of which we dispute appears by the Question he propounds and the Answer he returns to it But why was not St. Peter then presently honoured by our Saviour with a BLESSED ART THOV SIMON THE SON OF BARJONA To this says he Theophylact answers That our Lord suspended praising him then tho he deserved it lest being at a time when others deserted him it might seem done out of design and a piece of Artifice to retain him with him But Euthymius says he more probably thinks it was because he answered not for himself only but in the Name of all among whom there was one so far from being worthy of Praise that our Saviour presently after to rectify Peter's Mistake told them he was a Devil †Ibid. p. 15. It is therefore certain that either the rest of the Apostles at this time knew the Divinity of Christ or that St. Peter was mistaken in the account he gives of their Faith. The Discussor indeed says St. Peter committed a great Mistake and Dr. G. that he found he had been mistaken But how doth that appear Because says the Discussor Christ told them that that was not the Belief of all of them one of them being a Devil ‖ St. Per. Suprem p. 94. And to the same purpose Dr. G. quotes Euthymius Be it granted that our Saviour excepted one in that he excepted no more than one it plainly follows that all the rest that is ten to one knew him to be the Son of God incarnate The Conclusion then is unavoidable that Peter was not the only Apostle to whom this Mystery was then made manifest Secondly The same Conclusion follows from what the Discussor himself grants He dares not exclude the blessed Virgin nor St. John Baptist no nor the Devils from the Knowledg of this Mystery and he grants that Joseph Zachary and Elizabeth Simeon and Anna the Prophetess who were honoured with Revelations and Visions fill'd with the holy Ghost and had the Gift of Prophecy if they did not fully know his Consubstantiality they had at least some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscure ways of it * Pag. 92 93. I need not make Reflections upon all these It will be sufficient to shew that if John the Baptist and the Devils knew it the Apostles could not be ignorant of it And First That it follows from the Knowledg of John the Baptist and that several ways 1. Because St. John could not but think himself in Duty bound to impart this Knowledg to his Country-Men His Office was to bear Witness of Christ and what more worthy to be witnessed concerning him than the Divine Excellency of his Person He was by his Testimony to prepare the way to dispose Men to believe on him could he then without Unfaithfulness omit that which above all other Arguments would be of Power to work Faith in them He who was so careful to confirm his Disciples in the Belief that he was the true Messiah †Matth. 11. 2 3. can it be supposed that he would not acquaint them with that which would above all other things render them stedfast in this Belief And if he publish'd this in his popular Discourses who can imagin that it never came to the Ears of the Apostles 2. The same is clearly inferred from the means by which the Discussor supposes John the Baptist arriv'd at this Knowledg viz. the Voice from Heaven at Jesus's Baptism He who heard a noise from Heaven by a Celestial Herald promulging him to be the Son of God He who saw the holy Ghost effigiated in the Form of a Dove that may be question'd descending from above and lighting upon him may very well be imagined to be instructed who he was ‖ Pag. 92. If so may it not as well be imagin'd that the Apostles might be as well instructed by the Report of this Noise from Heaven they received from John May not a Man understand as much by hearing a thing at second hand and as firmly believe it too if he hear it from a Person of unquestionable Credit as if he heard it at the first And that John the Baptist bear record of this St. John the Evangelist hath told us * John 1. 32. And can any considering Man perswade himself that the Apostles of our Saviour should be ignorant of that which the Baptist openly proclaimed to all the Jews 3. St. John the Baptist gave yet more pregnant proofs to his Hearers of Christ's Divinity He bear record that he was The Son of God by way of eminency so as never any other Man was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Article if this be not thought enough he loudly testified that he had a real being before he was a Man. For John cried this was he of whom I spake HE THAT COMETH AFTER ME IS PREFERRED BEFORE ME FOR HE WAS BEFORE ME †John 1. 34. In which Words as a learned Bishop of this Church hath observed first John taketh to himself a Priority of time speaking of Christ He that cometh after me For so he came after him into the Womb at his Conception into the World at his Nativity c. 2dly He attributeth to Christ a Priority of Dignity saying He is perferred before me 3dly He rendereth the reason or cause of the great Dignity that belong'd to Christ saying for or rather because he was
before me As if the Baptist had thus spake at large This Pearson on the second Article of the Creed p. 218 219. of the first Edit Man Christ Jesus who came in to the World and entered upon his Prophetical Office six Months after me is notwithstanding of far more Worth and greater Dignity even so much greater that I must acknowledg my self unworthy to stoop down and unloose the Latchet of his Shoes And the Reason of this transcendent Dignity is from the Excellency of that Nature which he had before I was for though he cometh after me yet he was before me Again St. John the Baptist prefers Christ before himself in this that whereas he himself had his Original from the Earth Christ came from Heaven and was above all * John 3. 31. thereby signifying that Divine Nature by which he existed in Heaven before he was conceived in his humane Nature of the blessed Virgin. Can it then be in reason supposed that the Apostles knew not this Mystery which John so freely publish'd to his Hearers especially considering that some of the Apostles were the Disciples of John before they were the Disciples of Christ But 4. If the Baptist knew the Divinity of Christ the Apostles we may conclude knew it much rather since besides what they had heard from John concerning it they had learn'd much more from their Master himself by his private Instructions and his publick Preaching Among other things they could not but have observed that he had frequently discovered Mens secret Thoughts and Reasonings that he had affirmed himself to be Lord of the Sabbath and that he had power on Earth to forgive Sins They had no doubt heard him say that God was his own Father and knew that the Jews accused him of Blasphemy for saying so because thereby they concluded he made himself equal with God. These and many other matters of the like import they had heard from his own Mouth of the Truth of which they were abundantly satisfied by seeing him do such Miracles which no Man before ever did in confirmation of what he said The Argument then lies thus If John the Baptist knew Christ to be the Son of the Living God the Apostles of Christ much more knew him to be so because they had not only all the same Arguments that he had but many more from the Words and Actions of Christ himself to assure them of this great Truth Secondly The same Conclusion is as strongly inferred from what the Discussor grants of the Devil's Knowledg and the ways by which he attained to it How the Devils arrived to this Knowledg Opinions he says are various Three of which he mentions The first seems to be of no weight viz. That when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven God revealed to him that his Son should assume humane Nature and that Man should be exalted to the hypostatic Vnion with the Word †Pag. 93. That God revealed this to him when he was a glorious Angel there is not the least proof and in case he did yet unless he reveal'd also that this Jesus of Nazareth was the Man that was exalted to the Hypostatic Union with the Word it will not reach the Point to be determined And he must be a Man of a wonderful fancy who can imagine that this was revealed to the Devil when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven As for the other ways he mentions the Devil had by them no advantage of the Apostles For the next opinion he cites is that of Theophylact viz. that the Thief stole this Knowledg from the Voice from Heaven And why might not the Apostles also get it the same way For though they heard not this Voice immediately from Heaven yet they had the report of it from John the Baptist and as firmly believ'd it as if they themselves had at first heard it The third opinion is that of St. Austin viz. That it was made known to the Devil by the operation of so many Miracles wrought by the Finger of God which the Devil knew did transcend his and all Angelical Power And in this the Apostles who were Christ's constant Attendants and the Eye-witnesses of his Miracles were not inferiour but if there was any difference it may be presum'd the Advantage lay on the Apostles side For tho they knew not how far the Power of Apostate Spirits might reach and whether some of his Works were such as exceeded their Power to effect yet there were others of them and they the far greater part that could leave no ground for any such Suspition but were such unquestionable Effects of a Divine Power that all Mankind have concluded they could be wrought by none but the Finger of God. If then by these means the Devil came to know the Divinity of Christ might not all the Apostes as well know it having the same means of knowing it Let us now see what was the Judgment of the Ancients in this point Thirdly The same Conclusion is also confirm'd by the Testimonies of many more Fathers than are alledged by the Discussor for the contrary He produces three viz. Hilary Cyril of Jerusalem and Basil of Seleucia Let these be yielded to him what will they signify when they are over-voted by a far greater Number The Discussor himself grants that the Fathers incidently say that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God before St Peter's promulging him so But then he says they meant thereby his nominal not his natural Filiation Let us therefore see whether he truly represents their meaning He instances only in St. Ambrose whom he finds in one place to affirm that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God as well as St. Peter and in another to seem to appropriate it wholly to him ‖ Pag. 90. In the one then he roundly affirms that the other Apostles knew it in the other he does but seem to deny it The place he means in which he affirms it is I presume in the sixth Book of his Comments on St. Luke c. 9. Now the Question is whether St. Ambrose in this place meant that the Apostles knew the Divinity of Christ which no Man that impartially reads the Text can so much as question and therefore it was wisely done of the Discussor not to tell his Reader where it was to be found for St. Ambrose there commenting upon St. Peter's Answer as it is recorded by St. Luke Thou art the Christ of God says thus If it was sufficient to the Apostle Paul to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified what more should I desire to know than Christ for in this one Name is the Expression both of his Divinity and Incarnation and the Faith of his Passion And therefore THOVGH THE OTHER APOSTLES KNEW IT yet Peter answers rather than the rest THOV ART CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD he therefore comprised all who expressed both his Nature and his
l. 2. c. 1. Hieron de Script Eccles in Jacobo was chosen by the Apostles yea by Peter himself as well as the rest as Clemens of Alexandria tells us * Clement Hypot l. 6. apud Euseb l. 2. c 1. Bishop of Jerusalem and preferr'd before them all And therefore after this we find them rank'd in this order James Peter and John James first as the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem Peter next as the first of the Apostles under James as he had been before the first under Christ and John next as the beloved Disciple The like order was observed in the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem For as it was the Custom in such Assemblies for him that was first to speak last so we accordingly find that James as President of that Council spake last summ'd up all that Peter had said before him and gave the final Determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore I judg or give Sentence †Acts 15. 19. Hence it was that the Synodical Decree was drawn up in the words of St. James hence also that when Peter was deliver'd out of Prison by an Angel he commanded the Disciples to shew it unto JAMES and the Brethren ‖ Acts 12. 17. And that when St. Paul came to Jerusalem he went the next day to James * Acts 21. Now though I think it may be convincingly proved that this James was James the Son of Alpheus yet I need not insist upon that because if it was not he but another of the second rank of the Apostles as some contend the Argument will be yet the stronger against St. Peter's Supremacy It is an Argument that the Fathers ascribed no such Authority to St. Peter in that what he produces from them for the Proof of it is nothing to the purpose as will appear by the recital of it When St. Paul says of himself Gal. 1. 18. that he went to Jerusalem on purpose to see PETER St. AMBROSE or the Author of the Commentaries c. gives this reason of it because he was PRIMVS INTER APOSTOLOS CVI DELEGAVERAT SALVATOR CVRAM ECCLESIARVM The FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES TO WHOM OUR SAVIOUR HAD COMMITTED THE CARE OF THE CHURCHES †Serm. of St. Pet. p. 26 27. What 's here that looks toward a Supremacy Is it that Peter is called the first among the Apostles The Vanity of this hath been already shew'd It is that the care of the Churches was commited to him This is no more than what was committed to every one of the Apostles Nay so far was this Author from asserting this that within six lines after the words quoted he speaks of St. Paul as Co-apostolus fellow-Apostle with St. Peter ‖ Veniens ergo ad eum hospitio receptus est et apud eum mansit dies quindecim quasi unanimus et Coapostolus Comment in Epist ad Galat c. 1. v. 18. And in his Comment upon the 7th ver of the next Chapter he hath these words He viz. Paul names PETER only and compares him to himself because he had received the Primacy to found the Church but he himself also was in like manner chosen that he might have the Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles Yet so as that Peter also might preach to the Gentiles if there was cause for it and Paul to the Jews for we find that both of them preached to both But yet full Authority is acknowledged to be given to Peter in preaching to the Jews and Paul 's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles * Petrum solum nominat et sibi comparat quia primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut primatum habeat in fundandis gentium Ecclesiis ita tamen ut Petrus Gentibus praedicaret si causa fuisset c. Is this spoken like one who took Peter for the Sovereign of the universal Church I desire the Reader to consult his Comment upon these Words When James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars c. And to avoid tediousness shall recite but one passage upon these Words But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the Face c. Who durst says he resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven BVT ANOTHER SVCH AS HE who in confidence of his Election knowing himself NOT VNEQVAL TO HIM might constantly blame what he had unadvisedly done †Nam quis corum auderet Petro primo Apostolo cui claves regni Coelorum Dominus dedit resistere nisi alius talis qui fiducia electionis suae sciens se non imparem constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat I leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether this Author took Peter to be Paul's Superiour As little to the purpose is it that St. Chrysostom reckons Peter the Prince of the Apostles as hath been already shew'd And less yet that he calls him their Mouth as might be largely shew'd were it not intolerably irksome to insist upon such Impertinencies And whereas St. Austin says that he represented the whole Church propter primatum Apostolatus by reason of the Primacy of the Apostleship St. Austin himself tells us in another place what Primacy he means Peter says he the FIRST IN ORDER of the Apostles ‖ Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus De Verb. Dom. in Evang. secund Matth. Serm. 13. I shall conclude this with the words of two late Authors of the Roman Communion The first acknowledges that the Primacy of St. Peter was that of Order or Place only the second that this Primacy gave him no Dominion over the other Apostles In every Society of Men saith a learned Sorbonist some Order ought to be kept and it is necessary that among many there be some first It is not therefore to be questioned but that in the Colledge of the Apostles some one was first but the Evangelists testify that this one was Peter who when they enumerate the Apostles not only place Peter the FIRST IN ORDER but affirm that he was first * Ellies Du Pin Dissert Hist 4. p. 311. And again The Question whether Peter had the FIRST PLACE among the Apostles is Historical and may be proved by the Testimony of Writers both of the same and of following Ages †Dissert 4. S. 2. p. 313. They say also says another Romanist that he is sometimes nam'd the first but if it had been always so this would not prove that he had Authority over the others as the Pope assumes it over Bishops Among the Presidents a Mortier the first hath no Power over the other nor amongst the Electors of the Empire the Elector of Mentz who hath the first place hath not any Authority over the other Electors and so in every Society the Primacy does not carry Dominion with it ‖ Ils
sententiam nimis subtiliter probando perdidit In loc Is not the word used in Scripture in both numbers without any the least difference in sense For instance St. Matthew says when Jesus was baptiz'd the Heavens were opened ‖ Matth. 3. 16. St. Luke says the Heaven was opened * Luke 3. 21. Yea the same Evangelist uses them both indifferently In the Lord's Prayer the word is plural in the Introduction singular in the third Petition both in St. Matthew and Luke and in both used in the same sense And so far were the Fathers from making any difference between them that they on the contrary frequently express Matth. 18. 18. in the plural Number and Matth. 16. 19. in the singular as Chamier hath proved at large †Panstrat Cathol tom 2. de Oecum Pontif. l. 11. c. 13. But granting his Argument to be nothing yet it is evident from hence says the Discussor that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent and to surmount the rest in the Power of the Keys ‖ Pag. 163. This is not more evident than it is from the place immediately before-cited that he believed the contrary But suppose as Maldonate says that he was in this a Dissenter from all the other Fathers as in many other Points he was shall his sole Judgment and that grounded upon a childish Error be of more Authority with us than the more solid Judgment of all the rest And why should we value his Judgment in this more than the Romanists do in that which immediately follows viz. That by how much the better any Man is by so much the greater power he hath of binding and loosing which in the Church of Rome is no less than Heresy But the Truth is this place of Origen is nothing to the Purpose For he doth not here compare Peter to the rest of the Apostles to whom he supposed the Power of the Keys was equally given Matth. 16. but to those private Christians only who should thrice admonish their offending Brother he supposing the Words Matth. 18. 18. to be directed to those alone who told their Brother of his fault as will be evident to every one who shall impartially consider the place The next Father he quotes is St. Hilary And how does it appear that he gives a larger Portion of the Keys to Peter than to the other Apostles Thus that whereas he calls the other Apostles Janitores Coeli the Door-Keepers of Heaven he calls Peter by way of Transcendency O Beatus Coeli Janitor O blessed Door-Keeper of Heaven Is not this Demonstration It might pass for such with the Discussor had not St. Hilary in another place unluckily given the same Title and another too as high to all the Apostles You O HOLY AND BLESSED MEN who for the merit of your Faith have obtained the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN c. * Vos O sancti et beati viri ob fidei vestrae meritum claves regni Coeloruin sortiti et ligandi atque solvendi in Coelo et in terra jus adepti de Trinitat l. 6. Col. 74. Edit Paris 1631. What is this but to call them all the Holy and Blessed Door-Keepers of Heaven But the Discussor says He likewise affirms him advanced above the rest Advanc'd in what If he speak to the Purpose in the Power of the Keys How does he prove it By these Words Quia solus respondit caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae Confessione locum promeruit But what if the Word locum be not in Hilary What shall I think of his foisting in one Word for another Was not the Action unworthy and disingenuous in him especially who pretends so much to Truth and honest Dealing The best Palliation I can make for him is that he found it in Bellarmine †De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 12. St. Hilary's words are these Qui in cunctorum Apostolorum silentio Dei silium revelatione Patris intelligens ultra humanae infirmitatis modum supereminentem Beatae Fidei suae confessione Gloriam promeruit ‖ De Trinitate l. 6. col 78. How wide is the difference between these words and those of the Discussor It was pity he omitted the word Beatae because from thence he might have observ'd the transcendency of Peter's Faith. But that which I observe is That instead of Locum St. Hilary hath Gloriam Now since he was of opinion though different from all that went before him that Peter alone at that time knew the Divinity of Christ by a special Revelation from God what can he mean by this supereminent Glory but that he obtained the honor of confessing Christ's Divinity while the other Apostles were as yet ignorant of it But it is observable that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have received the Keys of Fidei suae meritum he asserts in his Comments on Matth. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse From whence he infers That he having a greater portion of Faith consequently had a larger power of the Keys But nothing can be more evident than that Hilary does not mean by anteisse that Peter had a greater Portion of Faith than the rest but that his Faith was before theirs in time the words immediately following being these For the rest not knowing it he first answered Thou art the Son of the living God * Nam ignorantibus caeteris primus respondit Tu es Filius Dei Vivi Comment in Matth. Can. 14. But is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that a Bishop hath the power of the Keys more or less in proportion to the measure of his Faith If so then supposing Peter had a Supremacy of Power the Pope cannot succeed him therein unless he succeed him also in the Supremacy of his Faith And I fear the Discussor will be hardly put to it to name any one Pope whose Faith hath surmounted that of all other Bishops The five next Testimonies viz. those of St. Ambrose though no such words as those he quotes are in Serm. 66. Cyril Basil Chrysostom Cyprian are all impertinent because they only affirm simply that the Keys were given or entrusted to Peter So Ambrose He it is that received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven So Cyril Peter bearing the Keys of Heaven c. There is nothing of comparison in any of these Quotations between Peter and the other Apostles nothing to insinuate that he hath the Keys in a higher degree than they If any thing be hence inferr'd it must be this That Peter had the Keys solely because they seem to speak exclusively of the other Apostles But that this cannot be their meaning the Discussor himself grants †Pag. 158 159 161 162. That they cannot mean that he had this Power in a higher degree than the other Apostles is as evident because the very same Fathers make him and the rest equal in this Power What then is the reason why they speak