limited to his Person but derivable to the Governors of the Church even to the consummation of the World One thing I shall add more which tends much to Peters Glory which is that in St. Austin's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he De Agon Christi Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus c. And in Serm. 49. in Evang. Johan Dicit Petro in quo uno format Ecclesiam c. And in Serm. 13. Evang. Matt. In illo ergo uno Apostolo id est Petro in ordine Apostolorum primo precipuo in quo figurabatur Eccclesia He then only of all the Apostles representing the Church was entrusted not only with the Keys of Heaven but with the Keys of the Church as St. Austin affirms Serm. 124. de temp Credendae erant Petro Claves Ecclesiae imo creditae sunt ei Claves Regni Coelorum He then may be said to have receiv'd them in their largest latitude and extent and in their Independent Jurisdiction as Head of the Church and of the Apostolick Quire the Rest receiv'd them in a lower narrower acceptation as Members of that Society He receiv'd them immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From our Lord himself from our Lords own Mouth as Chrysostom affirms They receiv'd them by a Proxy or participatively either by him or as Photius thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Person of their Prince 'T is most certain he first receiv'd them and as Tertull. de pudic affirms he first made use of them Primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum Coelestis Regni Optatus con Parm. says The Keys were given to him only to preserve Unity Stant tot innocentes peccator accipit Claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur but then he acknowledges they were to be communicated to the Rest but withal grants Peter the preference herein De Schism Lib. 7. Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit Claves Regni Coelorum communicandas coeteris solus accepit If you do believe thus much I shall hold no further Dispute with you about the Keys Now tho' I have already said something to your Quotation in St. Matt. 18. 18. I shall here make some addition That the Fathers did not attribute an equality of Power in the Keys to the rest of the Apostles with Peter by vertue of that place is evident by their Expounding it of Fraternal Correption giving by these words to the injur'd party Power of binding and loosing the Offender This is St. Chrysost Sense of this place And St. Hierom likewise In qualibet causâ nos frater loeserit demittendi habemus potestatem And St. Ambrose says Cum concordaveris cum fratre solvisti eum Peter also seems to take it in this meaning for presently upon Christs saying Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven He asks him Domine quoties peccabit in me frater dimittam ei Origen comes nearest the point of any and do's clearly decide it in his Notes on St. Matt. where he says that those words Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound on Heaven were common both to Peter and those that did admonish their Brothers But as for the words Dabo tibi Claves he says they were deliver'd separate apart to him that he might have something peculiar and egregious above the Rest his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the same place he do's acknowledge that what was spoken apart to him did far exceed what was spoken in common to the Rest those words do really appear more Authoritative and Extensive than the Power of binding and loosing granted the Rest which contains not the total but partial Acts of the Keys for they besides their including Power of Solution and Alligation are Badges of Dominion This made our Savior when he gave his Apostles the Power of binding and loosing to make no mention of the Keys reserving that Honour for St. Peter As for your Citation out of St. John 20. v. 5. here is likewise no mention of the Keys Christ did by virtue of these words give them all full Jurisdiction and Authority over the Universe In this their Apostolick Commission they were all equal but this was granted them not in reference to one another but in relation to the whole World of which they were all Princes and Heads whereas Dabo tibi Claves was spoken to Peter apart after a particular manner not competent to the other with a particular Blessing sprung from a particular Act of his confessing Christ his Divinity Christ alluding to his Name and declaring to him his Fathers Name and this was done in the presence of the Rest to shew them he design'd him their Head and Prince The next thing I am to remark is your Quotation out of St. Ambrose Claves illas Regni Coelorum in Beato Petro cuncti suscipimus Then you give me a check for saying they receiv'd them à Petro whereas you say it was in Petro. I shall not concern my self in the defence of this Criticism I know there is much to be said for either of the Opinions as you may see in Salmeron some say à some in and some per Petrum as you may see in Tertull. Scorp Nam si adhuc clausum putas esse Coelum memento Claves ejus hic Dominum Petro per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse And accordingly Greg. Nyss de Cast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to the Bishops the Key of Caelestial Honors per Petrum St. Ambrose Lib. Sacerd. dign says Cum Petro cum illo suscipimus omnes but I shall wave these niceties and come to your Quotation Claves illas Regni Coelorum in B. Petro cuncti suscipimus And here you left out a very material word Sacerdotes The Fathers did not mean by this saying a Minister of a Separate Reform'd Church but a Priest of the Catholick Church and the word Priest doth imply both Altar and Sacrifice Having thus gloss'd upon the words I grant them to be true The Master of the Sentences acknowledges every Priest to receive the Keys with his Sacerdotal Order Lib. 4. Distinct 19. Cum enim recipit ordinem Sacerdotalem simul has Claves recipit Now tho' every Parish Priest has the Keys as really and as truly as a Bishop or Primate yet he has them not in so ample and full a manner as they have but in a Circumscrib'd limited Sense he having no power to use them but on such as are in subjection to him which are fewer in number than they who are under a Bishop But upon examining this Author out of whom you have quoted so much I find him to ascribe the Power of the Keys only to the true Church Jus ligandi atque solvendi solis permissum est Sacerdotibus recte ergo Ecclesia hoc sibi vindicat quae veros habet Sacerdotes Haeresis vindicare non potest quae veros non habet Sacerdotes
solus haberet sed per eum derivarentur ad alios And accordingly St. Leo Transivit quidem in alios Apostolos vis potestatis hujus ad omnes Ecclesiae Principes decreti hujus constitutio commeavit Having yielded you thus much I shall here only maintain the Inequality Inferiority and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles to an higher sublimer and compleater degree of it in Peter They then may be said to have receiv'd the Keys Secondarily Derivatively Participatively by their Associating Adhering and Communicating with him their Head and Prince to whom after a particularizing manner they were originally given to indigitate his Plenitude and Sovereignty in them Origen who asks the Question An soli Petro dantur a Christo Claves acknowledges Peter more excelling in the Power of the Keys than the other Apostles And in his 6th Tract on St. Matt. he says That there was a great difference betwixt that which was said to Peter and what spoken to the Rest Frst He confesses him to have receiv'd the Keys not as the other Apostles did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of one Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of many Then he says That that which Peter bound and loosed was ratify'd not in one Heaven only but in all the Heavens But says he What the other Apostles did bind and loose is confirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not in the Heavens as what Peter did but in Heaven their Power not extending so far as Peters did so as to bind and loose in all the Heavens concluding him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melior ligator and he most happy who is loosed by him It is most evident from hence that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent and to surmount the rest in the Power of the Keys tho' Maldonate thinks he did injure this his true and solid Opinion by a too subtle way of proving it by making use of Heaven and Heaven's Hilarius who calls the other Apostles Janitores Caeli acknowledging them to have the Keys calls Peter by way of transcendency O Beatus Caeli Janitor He likewise affirms him advanc'd above the Rest Quia solus respondet caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae confessione locum promeruit And 't is observable out of him that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have receiv'd the Keys ob fidei suae meritum he asserts in his Comments on Matt. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse Thus he having a greater portion of Faith consequently had a larger Power in the Keys that being the reason why he recev'd them As for St. Ambrose I find him to attribue the Keys to Peter as a Character to distinguish him from the Rest confessing him to excel them therein in his Serm. 66. Cum omnes Apostoli parem gratiam apud Dominum sanctitatis obtineant nescio quo facto Petrus Paulus videntur prae caeteris peculiari quadam in Salvatore fidei virtute praecellere quod quidem ex ipsius Domini judicio possumus approbare nam Petro sicut bono dispensatori Clavem Regni Caelestis dedit Here he confesses them to be all equal in Sanctity but differenc'd in the Keys In his Lib. 10. Cap. 22. Lucae he says Tollit ergo Petrus aurem quare Petrus quia ipse est qui accepit Claves Regni Caelorum Here he asks a Question why Peter of all the Twelve cut off Malchas's Ear because says he it was he who receiv'd the Keys now had he thought the other equal in the Keys with him this had been no Reason In the 24th Chap. of the same Book he says much to the same effect where speaking of Peter Constanter qui posterior venerat primus ingreditur quasi qui Claves Regni Coelorum ut aliis aperiret acceperat In his Lib. 8. Cap. 9. Lucae he mentions the Keys as his peculiar Characteristical Note and Badge Petrus ascendit qui Claves Regni Caelorum accepit Johannes cui committitur Mater Domini Jacobus qui primus Sacerdotale solium ascendit Cyril Catech. 6. makes it Peters Glory to have the Keys as it was St. Paul's to be snatch'd up to the Third Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrysost in his 21 Hom. Corinth acknowledge him principally entrusted with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it was not such a wonderful thing to shew the other Apostles doing this as to demonstrate their Prince who was entrusted with the Keys doing it St. Basil acknowledges him Supereminent hererein De Judicio Dei where speaking of him he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that was prefer'd before all the rest of the Disciples who only obtain'd a more noble Testimony and proclaim'd Blessed who was entrusted with the Keys of the Kingdom St. Cyprian in his Epist to Jubain do's either acknowledge him to have receiv'd them solely or eminently above the Rest Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui Claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata Bede Hom. in Matt. 16. confesses he exceeded them in the Keys as he did in love Qui Regnum Caelorum majori dilectione prae caeteris confessus est merito prae caeteris collatis Regni Caelestis Clavibus donatus est As for St. Austin I do acknowledge that he affirms the Keys to be given to the Church when they were given to St. Peter and this is by Protestant Writers alledg'd as highly injurious to his Supremacy tho' I cannot see wherein 't is prejudicial to him or defringes the least Ray of Claritude from his Glory but rather guilds it with more radiant lustre if rightly understood For if you consult his Writings you will find that the reason which mov'd him to affirm this was because Peter represented the Church now in what quality he represented it he discovers himself in his Tract ult in Johan Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostlus propter Apostolatûs sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam And in Psal 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini B. Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatûs Principatum tenens Here he declares his Representation of the Church to be by vertue of his Principacy and Principacy So he may be said to represent it not in a Parabolical Sense as its Substitute or Vicar but Historically and Really as its Governor and Primate and consequently he receiv'd the Keys as one that had right and relation a parte rei not as an Atturney who takes possession for another but as a Prince receives the Keys of a City for himself tho' for the benefit of his Nation He receiv'd them immediately The Church by him as Tertul. affirms in Scorp Memento Claves Coeli hic Dominum Petro per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse Dr. Stapleton says That Peter receiv'd them formalitèr for himself but finalitèr for the benefit of the Church for the Power of the Keys was not
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.
Orbem quietum And I hope you will join with me herein not formally as when you pray for him in your Church marring your Prayer with some oblique Reflection but ex Pectore Heartily wishing him all those Benedictions which he may desire as Homo and as Caesar Which God grant him Morever I would desire you to leave off injuring your Prince in railing against his Religion in your Sermons falsly representing it to your cheated Auditory impressing them with wrong Ideas of it and thereby alienating the Affections of his Majesties Liege Subjects which is a Crime of the greatest magnitude and of most dangerous Consequences yet this freedom is taken by several who fancy they may wreak and evaporate that Passion which they dare not on his Sacred Person safely against his Religion thus slily discharging their rancour against a most incomparable Prince to whom they can ascribe no other fault but what really in it self is Glorious and deserving Acclamations namely His returning to the bosom of the Catholick Church which Action of his being render'd more noble by the violent Oppositions and Contrasts of his Enemies will maugre their spight purchase to him surpassing Glory in this World and Immortal Beatitude in that to come He who like a Generous Eagle slighting the Artillery of the Sky darting through the midst of the storm where the flashes are most astonishing and the claps most loud with an undaunted Spirit triumphantly resisted and brake through the tumultuous Rage of popular fury and stemm'd the torrent of its impetuous stream contemning those many Crowns that did attend him for his Conscience sake He has not only now his Victorious Temples adorn'd by the Justice of Heaven with a Diadem more bright than that of his Predecessors being thereby made CONTEMPTAE DOMINVS SPLENDIDIOR REI But has an innumerable quantity of Celestial Crowns beset with Stars reserv'd for him in the rich Treasury of Heaven as a suitable reward for his hazarding his Temporal ones for the sake of his GOD AND RELIGION For Thee GREAT PRINCE Praise has no proper Encomium nor COMMENDATION a fit Panegyrick nor this World an adequate Recompence nor thy Kingdoms a suitable Sacrifice but that of the Hearts of thy Subjects Too happy would this Nation be had it understanding enough to apprehend its own Good having a Prince who would not only protect them here on Earth but serve as a Pilot to conduct them to Heaven 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 IT may now seem high time to finish my intermitted Discourse concerning the Keys answering you likewise in that Point But upon perusing your Papers I find you write but little on this Subject but only offer me a rude indigested Lump of Quotations without any Method which in lieu of becoming a Clue to conduct me were a Skain of snarled Thred to perplex and involve me which made me more curious in prying into the intricacies of this matter and of acquiring satisfaction herein which I thought could not be obtain'd without reducing your Quotations into some form and then by solving them Your chief drift in them was I perceive First to prove that Peter answered for the rest of the Apostles and thence to infer that what was said by our Savior to him was spoken to the Rest By this Method you would evince the Rest to be equally concern'd with him in the donation of the Keys This in short is the Web of your Design which I shall here endeavour to unravel This kind of Argumenting I find Dr. Whitaker to make use of long before you Petrus Discipulorum omnium nomine respondit Tu es Christus c. Ergo omnium nomine audivit Tibi dabo Claves but the cunning of this reasoning will be easily detected when it is examined upon what account he may be said to answer for the Rest Dr. Whitaker says it was because they had the same Faith and he only spake for them his words are these Non in suâ tantum personâ illam confessionem edidit Petrus fuit enim communis illa fides atque confessio Petri unius ore edita But this his Opinion can never be prov'd the Revelation of the true Faith being made to him only as I have already manifested As for the Fathers who affirm that Peter answered for the Rest Salmeron says of them thus Recte intelligendi Orthodoxè interpretandi And this is good Advice for they in saying so take the Twelve as a Society and Peter as their chief and in this Sense he may be said to speak for them But then he did not speak as their Praeco but as their Princeps he spake not their Sense but what God the Father had reveal'd and suggested to him he answered what they could not answer but they by their silence approving his Confession upon his first promulging it are said to answer by his Mouth tho' properly speaking Petrus solus respondit caeteri assentiuntur Now they being Members of that Community of which he was Supreme the words may be said in an inferior Sense to be spoken to the Rest which were originally spoken to him But now if they had the same Faith as he had our Saviors rejoinder had seem'd more proper thus Beati estis quia Pater meus revelavit vobis vos estis Petrae c. But you see Christ addresses his Reply to Peter only the words Tu and Tibi shutting out all partnership And this is St. Austin's Opinion of it Serm. 5. In Festo Petri Pauli where speaking of Peter he says thus Solus inter Apostolos meruit audire Amen dico tibi quia tu es Petrus c. And herein Spalato is very honest Certè verba Christi adeo sunt arctata voculis individuantibus ad unum Petrum directa ut nefas sit ea a Petri personâ divellere directè ad alios dirigere certissimum est Christum cum Petro directè proximè loqui Now if Persons would be ingenuous it is easily discern'd when Christ grants a thing peculiar to Peter and when he grants a thing in common to them all what he designs the other Apostles should equally share in with him he evidently expresses in the Plural Number Hoc facite in mei commemorationem this related to the Sacrifice and concern'd them all jointly as Priests What appertain'd to Preaching and Baptizing was deliver'd in common to them all Euntes docete omnes Gentes Baptizantes
c. And likewise what belongs to Remission of Sins Accipite Spiritum Sanctum quorum peccata rimiseritis remittuntur What he gives Peter apart and peculiar is in like manner evidently manifested by Christs speaking to him in the Singular Number Tu es Petrus Dabo tibi Claves Confirma Fratres Pasce Oves meas As for your Quotation out of St. Ambrose Quod Petro dicitur caeteris dicitur 'T is granted to be true in one Sense and I acknowledge that the Fathers have Sayings to this effect as Origen Dabo tibi Claves caeteris quoque commune and others might be mention'd which Catholick Writers do not deny as you may see by Salmeron Vere dicunt Patres verba illa dicta etiam aliis non quod ad alios immediate dicta sint sed quod ita Petro dicta sunt ut non sibi soli dicta They grant the other Apostles to partake herein but not eodum gradu Your Authors affirm that they did equally share with Peter and that he had nothing egregious and singular as Dr. Whitaker affirms Nos non aliter quam caeteri nullo modo concredimus accepisse nihil proprium aut singulare tributum But I shall return to your Quotation out of St. Ambrose granting it true derivatively or in a subordinate inferior acceptation this hinders not but that these words were primordially deliver'd to Peter alone tho' in a proportionate Sense they be extendible to the Rest as Members of the Apostolick College and compriz'd in him their Head Now if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purple must be judg'd of by Purple I shall by confronting St. Austin with St. Ambrose authenticate this my Explication St. Austin Quaest 75. Vet. Novi Testam on Ego rogavi pro te says thus Pro Petro rogabat pro Jacobo pro Johanne non rogabat Vt caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri rogans enim pro Petro pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur Semper enim in Praeposito populus aut corripitur aut laudatur Here they be said to be included in Peter as their Governor And in the same Book Salvator cum pro se Petro dare jubet pro omnibus exolvisse videtur quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causae magisterii ita post Salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur ipsum enim constituit caput eorum Here they are said to be contain'd in him as in their Head But if any one should have as nice and sagacious a Nose as Erasmus and fancy that by the stile he can smell out this Book not to be St. Augustin's I shall give you another Saying out of him to the same effect out of his 124th Tract in Johan Cum enim Petro dicitur sequere me nec dicitur caeteris qui simul aderant profecto eum sicut Magistrum Discipuli sequebantur Here they are included in him as their Master In this Sense it is not improper to say that what Christ said to Peter was spoken to the Rest not but that the words were primarily and immediately directed to him but because in an inferior Sense they are communicable to them all as summ'd up in him Now that the promise of the donation of the Keys was originally made to Peter solely is clearly attested by the Authority of Eulogius Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Savior said neither to John nor to any other of his Disciples I will give unto thee the Keys of Heaven but to Peter only and upon what account they were given him St. Chrysost in Hom. 8. Fest Pascal declares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He receiv'd the Keys as a recompence of his Orthodox Faith And Photius much to the same Sense in his 35th Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He delivered into the Hands of Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as a reward of his true Confession Now as to the other Apostles having the Keys I shall premise this in Honor to St. Peter First That it cannot be prov'd out of the Scripture that the Keys in express words were given to any but to him and unless you can shew me some place in the New Testament where our Savior says to his Disciples Conjunctim vobis dabo Claves or to any of them Particulatim tibi dabo Claves he has the best Plea and Title to them Now as for your Quotation out of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and out of St. John 20. 21. to prove that the other Apostles had them I answer That it cannot clearly be inferr'd from either of those places that they had them the word Keys being not so much as mention'd there or if it should be granted that they had them by vertue of those places of Scripture it do's not follow they had them in the same Sense and Amplitude that Peter had And herein I submit to Jansenius whose words are these Quamvis dici potest sicut Patres frequenter dicunt etiam omnibus Apostolis traditas Claves loquendo de Clavibus ut per eas communiter significatur potestas remittendi retinendique peccata sicut ibi nulla Clavium mentio ita non est necesse dicere Claves Petro promissas omnibus traditas secundum eum sensum quo Petro hic promissae non Apostolis ibi aut alibi Claves ita traditae Now if either or both of these places you cite were equivalent to Dabo tibi Claves what Reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular and general promise of them and why he should have two Promises of the same thing whereas one had sufficed But Secondly I add That whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts they being spoken conjointly to the Twelve Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any but having over and above his portion in this joint promise a particular one apart to himself in which the Rest were immediately no sharers it cannot be disprov'd but by vertue of this singular separate Promise made to him personally in the presence of the Rest that he had the Keys either alone or if the Power of the Keys were afterwards given to the Rest that he was Supreme in it he having besides the Power of Binding and Loosing which is an effect of the Keys The Keys themselves which are a Badge and Symbol of that Power He then Originally receiv'd them as they are Ensigns of Supreme Ecclesiastick Power Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christ's House which is the Church and was thereby constituted his Steward and set over all his Family But notwithstanding all this I shall not here go about to appropriate the Power and Use of the Keys only to him limiting them to his sole peculiar enclosure but shall grant you that they had the use of them for Peter did not receive them so as to retain them solely to himself but to communicate them to the other Apostles and following Pastors as Thomas contra Gentes affirms Non sic intelligitur Petro Claves Regni commississe ut ipse