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
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
A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy PART I. In Answer to a Treatise intituled St. Peter's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers And to a Sermon of S. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager on St. Peter and St. Paul's Day by Thomas Godden D. D. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Discourse of the Pope's Supremacy H. Maurice Rmo. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Junii 7. 1688. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the 〈◊〉 and Crown in St. Paul 's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy THOUGH the Pope's universal Pastorship is a Claim so groundless and the Vanity of it hath been so exposed not only by Protestants but by some learned Men of the Church of Rome that he had need have a Roman Confidence who shall now think to impose upon us by a pretence so miserably baffled yet because it is by many still insisted upon with as much Assurance as if nothing had been said in Confutation of it it may not be amiss to enquire whether any thing new hath been produc'd in defence of this good old Cause of the Church of Rome by her late Advocates * Nubes Testium St. Peter 's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers A Sermon of St. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager by Thomas Godden D. D. The Pope's Supremacy asserted from the Considerations of some Protestants and the Practice of the Primitive Church in a Dialogue between a Church-Divine and a Seeker in Vidication of Nubes Testium The first of those Discourses quoted in the Margin hath already received an Answer and I think it needless to repeat what hath been said by the learned Author of it The other three I intend to examine the two former of them joyntly because there is no Argument offer'd in the Sermon that we do not also meet with in the Treaties of St. Peter's Supremacy the third which is a Reply to the Answer to the Nubes Testium shall be consider'd distinctly and apart The Discourse of St. Peter's Supremacy was written as the Author informs us in Confutation of some Advertisement to the Reader Papers he received from a Protestant Divine having never seen those Papers and having great reason upon many accounts to suspect that what he quotes from them is not fairly represented I shall take no notice of them but whatsoever I find in his Book that is pertinent to the main Question and hath but the shew of Argument shall be duly consider'd What he hath offer'd is he tells us as well perform'd as his Abilities would permit and his Abilities we may presume were none of the meanest after he had given the Fathers a due Discussion and applied himself to the modern Authors of both sides that he himself had no low opinion of his Performance we may reasonably conclude in that he thought it worthy the Approbation and Protection of her Majesty the Queen Regent I therefore expected great matters beyond what I had formerly met with but no sooner had I read a few pages but my Expectation flagg'd and upon the Perusal of the whole Book I scarce ever found my self more disappointed The first Part is wholly spent upon other Points excepting part of chap. 1. concerning St. Peter's Successor it being as he himself tells us but Prefatory and introductive to the main Design he aim'd at which Part. 2. chap. 1. in the second Part he applies himself to and his whole Discourse in the second and third Parts may be reduc'd to these two general Heads I. St. Peter's Supreme Authority over the Universal Church II. That the Bishop of Rome succeeded him in this Supremacy CHAP. I. I. THAT St. Peter was invested with supream Authority over the Universal Church This is the Supremacy he means a Primacy of Order is not denied by Protestants but that will not satisfy the Pope and 〈◊〉 Friends that which they contend for is a Supremaâ—◠〈◊〉 Power over all Christians not excepting the 〈◊〉 themselves Now that St. Peter had this Supremacâ— he attempts to prove by several Texts of Holy Scripture and by the Testimonies of several Fathers which he quotes as he goes along to confirm the Sense he gives of those Scriptures The Scriptures he produces he was put to no pains to search for they being no other than those common Texts which have I think been pressed upon the same Service by every Romanist that hath ever written upon this Subject viz. Matth. 16. v. 17 18 19. John. 21. 16. In the first he supposes that Christ promised this Supremacy in the second that he conferr'd it SECT I. I begin with the first whence he argues as his Predecessors in this Controversy have ever done from the double Promise Christ made to St. Peter The one in these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the other in these And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. But before he proceeds to discourse of these there are two things he supposes as the reason and Foundation of this special Honour conferr'd on St. Peter †Part 2. c. 1 2 3. First That at the time when he made this Confession he alone knew the Divinity of Christ the rest of the Apostles being as yet ignorant of this great Mystery Secondly That he knew this by a special Revelation from God the Father I shall therefore first examine his Foundation because if that fail the Supremacy built thereon will of it self fall to the Ground It hath not without Reason been questioned by some whether by the Son of the living God St. Peter meant any more than he did by the Christ not only because the former Expression is in other Texts of Scripture expounded by the latter but because St. Mark speaking of this very Confession of St. Peter makes it no more than this Thou art the Christ ‖ Mark 8. 29. And St. Luke that he was the Christ of God * Luke 9. 20. Yea the Discussor himself supposes that Peter confessed no more than what Christ afterward strictly commanded his Disciples to conceal as too sublime to be divulged †Pag. 79. And that we find ver 20. was no more than this That he was Jesus the Christ And if St. Peter's Confession amounted to no more it cannot then be denied but that St. Andrew long before him confessed as much when he said We have found the Messiah ‖ John 1. 49. And that Nathanael's Confession was no way inferiour when he said Thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel * John 1. 49. But be it granted that St. Peter by the Son of the living God meant that he was the Son of God by Nature as the Fathers generally expound it yet that the other Apostles were not at this time ignorant of this
Heaven be common to the rest why shall not likewise all those things be common to all both which are spoken before and which follow after as spoken to PETER ‖ Tract 1. in Matth. 16. Of the same Judgment must all those Fathers before-mention'd be who were of Opinion that the other Apostles had the same Faith and would have made the same Confession had not Peter prevented them For since they knew that this Article of our Faith could not be known but by Divine Revelation they must of Necessity hold that all they that knew it had such a Revelation of it To which I may also add All those who affirm that the Promise of the Keys was made not only to Peter but to all the Apostles which as I shall afterward shew was the general Opinion of the Fathers I might here fairly dismiss the Discussor for his Foundation failing whatsoever is built upon it must of it self tumble down And were indeed both his Suppositions true Were it true that the other Apostles were ignorant of Christ's Divinity and that Peter attained to the knowledg of it by a particular Revelation yet he must be a Man of rare Art who can superstruct his Supremacy upon such a bottom For what connection is there between these two Propositions Peter first knew the Divinity of Christ by special Revelation therefore Peter hath supreme Jurisdiction over the Universal Church Is not this Consequence altogether as good Andrew knew him to be the Messiah before Peter therefore Andrew was Peter's Superior And this is somewhat better St. John lay in Christ's Bosom or had the uppermost place next after Christ at Meals therefore St. John is the Prince of the Apostles Are not these admirable Consequences And yet I fear we shall find no better proofs for Peter's Supremacy But because some perhaps may say It is not much material whether these Hypotheses stand or fall since the direct Proofs he afterwards produces both from Scripture and the Antients are a Foundation that can never be shaken I shall proceed to examine the remainder of his Discourse though not in his preposterous Method It is an absurd thing to talk of the Pope's Supremacy as St. Peter's Heir unless St. Peter's Supremacy be first made out I shall therefore begin with that and in case it appear that St. Peter was invested with this paramount Power it will then be fit to enquire whether it descended to the Bishop of Rome as his Heir The Proofs he produces of St. Peter's Supremacy are as I said before no other than those two Texts of Scripture commonly press'd by the Romanists to serve in this cause and the Sayings of some Fathers to confirm the sense he gives of these Texts In the first of these viz. Matth. 16. 18 19. he fancies he is furnished with a double Argument one from these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church The other from these Words And to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ver 19. CHAP. II. HE first insists upon these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Upon which he bestows three Chapters In so long a Discourse upon a Rock one might well expect to find something at least of solid reasoning but alas the whole from the beginning to the end is so sandy so incoherent and inconsequent that I am at a great loss to find any thing that does but look like an Argument For if at last all should be granted to St. Peter that he would hence infer it will in no wise conclude that Sovereign Dominion he contends for as will plainly appear by taking a survey of his 4th 5th and 6th Chapters SECT I. He grants that Christ is the primary and principal Foundation of the Church on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and St. Peter himself is mystically superedified * Chap. 4. pag. 100. by the way were not the Apostles and St. Peter true Christians If they were does not the Discussor speak absurdly when he says Not only every true Christian but the Apostles and St. Peter himself as if they were not included in the number of true Christians Need he have quoted St. Austin and St. Cyril for this Was it ever denied by Protestants Nay does he not say that Protestants traduce them as if they went about to despoil our Saviour of this Honour But to shew his reading in the Fathers he produces their Testimonies for what we affirm as well as for what we deny He might also have spared his pains in proving that things subordinate combat not one with another but suppose one another †Pag. 101. were it not that we should not then have seen his Learning in the distinction of fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But lest his liberal Concessions to our Saviour should seem to derogate from St. Peter's Glory he puts in this caution to secure it That Peter is not hereby excluded by no means for then the Pope is excluded too but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ ‖ Ibid. And this also if it will please him is granted by Protestants and therefore he is uncivil to the Fathers in summoning them again to bear Witness to it But though he cites the Fathers to no Purpose it may not be impertinent to note two things from those here cited 1. He quotes Tertul. Lib. contra Marc. * Pag. 103. as if it were but one single Book whereas Tertullian hath written five Books against Marcion each of them consisting of a great Number of Chapters As exact is he in the Words cited Tertullian enquiring the reason why Simon 's Name was changed to Peter his Words are these Sed cur Petrum Si ob vigorem fidei multae materiae solidaeque nomen de suo accomodarent An quia Petra et lapis Christus Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem offendiculi et in Petram scandali omitto caetera Itaque adfectavit carissimo Discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare †Advers Marc. l. 4. c. 13. Which he thus recites Christus Petrum ita vocat quia lapis Petra ipse est itaque affectavit carissimo discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare But I presume he took it upon trust and therefore may be excused 2. Three of the four Fathers he quotes give a reason of this name and the reason given by two of those three is as applicable to the other Apostles as to Peter So is that of St. Austin Consortium meretur nominis qui consortium meretur et operis And so is that of St. Ambrose Recte quia Petra Christus Simon nuncupatus est Petrus ut qui cum Domino fidei societatem habeat cum Domino habeat et nominis Dominici societatem Now since the reason they
give of it is common to them all we may hence reasonably conclude that they thought this illustrious Title as truly applicable to the other Apostles as to St. Peter But one thing I may not omit lest the Discussor should think it unanswerable Upon a Quotation out of St. Basil Hom. 28. de Poenit. to shew that Peter's being the Rock doth not exclude Christ from being so he makes this Remark 'T is very observable here that this Father acknowledges Christ to have made the other Apostles LIGHTS SHEEP and PRIESTS but he mentions but ONE ROCK WHICH IS PETER ‖ P. 103 104. This Criticism he adds may be observed in St. Ambrose lib. 6. Lucae Ego sum inquit lux Mundi c. And St. Jerome likewise accords herein in his Comments on Abdias c. * Pag. 104. It is pity this critical Observation should be lost and yet who can help it for when these Fathers in the places quoted express Rock and Disciple in the singular number as he made a Rock says St. Basil †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He denied not to his Disciple the favour of that Name says S. Ambrose ‖ Petra erat Christus etiam Discipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiam non negavit Comment lib. 6. in Evang. Luc. c. 9. tom 3. col 117. And the Rock gave to Peter that he should be a Rock says St. Jerom * Ipsa Petra donavit Petro ut Petra fit Comment in Abd. The utmost they can mean is no more than one of these two things or both together 1. That these words Vpon this Rock were directed in particular to St. Peter Or 2. That this Title Rock was given to him as his proper Name though as to its meaning it might be as truly ascribed to the other Apostles For so far was St. Ambrose from denying that the other Apostles were Rocks that within two lines after the words quoted by the Discussor he supposes that every Christian may and ought to be a Rock for the same reason as St. Peter was For having said that Christ gave him this Name because he had from the Rock solidity of Constancy and firmness of Faith he adds Therefore do thou endeavour that thou also mayst be a Rock therefore seek the Rock not without thee but within thee †Petra est Christus eiam Discipulo suo hujusvocabuli gratiam non negavit ut et ipse sit Petrus quòd de Petra habeat soliditatem constantiae fidei firmitatem Enitere ergo ut tu Petra sis itaque non extra te sed intra te Petram require c. Ambros lib. 6. in Evang. Luc. c. 9. col 117. Edit Paris 1614. But to have added this would have defeated his design in quoting the rest St. Jerom expresly says in the plural Number That Christ is the Rock who vouchsafed to his Apostles also that they should be called Rocks saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church ‖ Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Comment lib 3. in Amos. c. 7. v. 12. tom 6. pag. 102. Bas 1553. Where from these words Thou art Peter c. he infers that Christ the Rock bestowed not only upon Peter but upon the other Apostles that they should be called Rocks What is now become of this Observable We may without danger grant that Exposition of St. Austin he contends for * P. 104 105. and therefore have no reason to court him cap in hand for the other But when he says that by his varying from his former frequent Explication he deviated from St. Ambrose who baptised him he says not true if the Comments upon the Epistles be St. Ambrose's which the Discussor quotes as his for he there expounds the Rock to be the Confession of the Catholick Faith made by Peter * Unde dicit Dominus ad Petrum Super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam hoc est in hac Catholicae Fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam Comment Epist ad Ephes c. 2. Tom. 3. col 498. which is in effect to expound it of Christ But I grant those Comments to be none of his Whether St. Austin changed his former Exposition upon a Mistake or whether he were no good Hebrician ‖ Pag. 106. is not here pertinent to be enquired In what sense he calls Peter Head of the Church shall be afterward shewed That in most perspicuous terms he acknowledges in several places of his Writings PETER's SVPREMACY * Pag. 107. has not so much as shadow of proof in any of the places produc'd by the Discussor But St. Austin declares them Wretched and Hereticks that disown him to be the Rock Thus Agon Christ he calls them miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt This is grosly to abuse St. Austin had he considered either the Words that go before or that follow those he hath cited he might have seen that St. Austin could not by the Rock in this place mean Peter for he tells us just before that Peter sustains the Person of the Church and that the Keys are given to the Church when they are given to him To the same purpose are the words that immediately follow †De Agone Christiano c. 30 31. Now could he bear the Person of the Church built upon the Rock and at the same time be the Rock it self upon which it is built St. Austin therefore by the Rock meant Christ himself and by Peter the Church of Christ as he plainly expresses himself in other places This Name Peter says he was imposed upon him by Christ that by that figure he might signify the Church for because Christ is the Rock Peter is the Christian People ‖ Serm. 13. de Verb. Dom. secund Matth. Again The Rock was Christ upon which Foundation even Peter himself is built for other Foundation can no Man lay besides that which is laid which is Christ Jesus The Church therefore which is founded in Christ received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Peter that is the power of binding and of loosing Sins For that which properly the Church is in Christ that by signification is Peter in the Rock BY WHICH SIGNIFICATION CHRIST IS VNDERSTOOD TO BE THE ROCK PETER TO BE THE CHVRCH * Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum etiam ipse aedificatus est Petrus fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est quod est Christus Jesus Ecclesia ergo quae fundatur in Christo c. Tractat. 24. in Evang. Johannis And that this was St. Austin's notion of the Rock in this place will farther appear if we consider the Scope of his Discourse which was to prove that remission of Sins is to be obtained in the Church Let us
says he not hearken to them who deny that the Church of God can remit all Sins Then follow the words quoted by the Discussor Therefore those wretched Persons while in Peter that is the Church they do not understand the Rock that is Christ and will not believe that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Church they themselves have lost them †Nec eos audiamus qui negant Ecclesiam Dei omnia peccata posse dimittere Itaque miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt et nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claves regni Coelorum ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt De Agone Christiano c. 31. They themselves have lost the Keys because they will not believe that they were given to the Church And why will they not believe this because in the Church they do not understand Christ in whom the Church is founded who hath committed the Keys to her The next Passage is quoted out of St. Austin contra 5 Haeres I suppose he means his Oration de quinque Haeresibus in which there is no such Passage and in case it were it would be altogether as impertinent as the former But that which comes next he is confident must gag us and make us as silenced Ministers as if the Wolves had first seen us viz. that St. Austin makes the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to be the Rock contra partem donati Numerate Episcopos ab ipsa sede beati Petri ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae * Pag. 107. It is well for them that this must silence us they will then for the future be no more troubled with disputing which is a Work they are very awkard at But if this will silence us how comes it to pass that we were not silenced long since this place having been often produced against us The truth is so far is it from stopping our Mouths that it furnishes us with a new Argument against Peter's Supremacy which when the Discussor shall consider he may perhaps be silenced himself or sneak away as it is said those Wolves do that are seen first by Men. Though if I should deny it the Discussor will not be able to prove that by the Rock is here meant the Succession of the Bishops of Rome yet as I have been all along liberal in my Concessions so should I for Argument sake grant him this also it will make nothing to the Advantage of his Cause For 1. If it be granted yet before the Discussor can hence infer the Bishop of Rome's or Peter's Supremacy he must prove that the Foundation of the Building is ever the supreme Lord of it 2. If it be granted yet the Succession of the Roman Bishops cannot by Virtue of these Words be the sole Rock or any more the Rock than the Succession of Bishops in any other Apostolical Church This will appear by restoring to the Text one little Word vel which the Discussor was so prudent as to leave out St. Austin's Words are these Numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede beati Petri et in ordine illo Petrum quis cui successit videte Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae From which Words these things are plain 1. That St. Austin here uses the very same Argument against the Donatists that Irenaeus Tertullian and several other Fathers had used before against the Hereticks of their times to prove the Catholick Doctrine viz. The Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches †Iren. l. 3. c. 3. l. 4. c. 63. Tertul. de Praescript c. 32. Cyprian Ep. ad Lapsos Edit Pamel 27. 2. That he proposes the Church of Rome only as a single Instance instead of all those Apostolical Churches that might have been mentioned As Irenaeus before had done who because it would have been tedious to enumerate the Successions of all Churches brings for an example that of Rome which was the greatest and most famous * Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae c. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Is Casaub Exercit 15. p. 310. And therefore he says not simply Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede beati Petri c. But numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede c. Which is in effect to say with Irenaeus Because it would be too long to reckon the Successions of Bishops in all those Churches in which the Catholick Doctrine hath been preserved ever since the Apostles consult at least the Succession of the Church of Rome from the first Founder of it St. Peter And therefore 3. And consequently if it be the Succession of the Bishops of Rome that he here makes the Rock he implicitely affirms the same of any other Apostolical Church in which there had been a continued Succession of Catholick Bishops which is further confirmed in that he elsewhere arguing against the same Donatists joyns the Church of Jerusalem together with that of Rome and makes the Chair of the former no way inferior in Authority to the latter If says he to Petilian all the Bishops through the World were such as thou most falsely accusest them to be yet what hath the Chair of the Church of ROME done in which Peter sate and in which at this day Anastasius sits or of the Church of JERVSALEM in which James sat and in which at this day John sits with which we are joyned in Catholick Vnity and from which you by a cursed Fury have separated your selves †Veruntamen si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid secit Ecclesia Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Johannes sedet quibus nos in Catholica Unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis Contra Lit. Petiliani l. 2. c. 51. And therefore 4. Nothing can hence be inferred for the Supremacy of Peter more than for the Supremacy of James or any other Apostle If any shall ask why St. Austin in case he did not ascribe some preeminence to the Church of Rome should mention that rather than the Church of Antioch of Jerusalem Or why he did not chuse to instance in the Church of Carthage rather than in any other The Answer is obvious To the first because the Church of Rome was at that time the most famous and of greatest esteem of any Church in the World To the second because the Donatists objected against the Church of Carthage and other African Churches that the Succession of Bishops had been in them interrupted by Traditors whereas they could not pretend this against the Church of Rome ‖ Is Casaub Exercit. 16. n. 149. P. 540. SECT II. All that the Discussor contends for
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
being such a Priviledg as might be equally enjoy'd by them all And yet I cannot conceive how his Title can be better than theirs though it be no where said to them jointly I will give you the Keys if that be said to them jointly which necessarily imports the same thing as it is To these Texts Mat. 18. 18. Joh. 20. 21. quoted by his Adversary to prove the other Apostles had the Keys he gives this Answer That it cannot clearly be inferred from either of these Places they had them the word KEYS being not so much as mentioned there ‖ Ibid. Not clearly inferred it 's granted then that it may be truly inferred tho not clearly And why not clearly because the word KEYS is not mentioned there Very wisely If what the word Keys imports be clearly mentioned in those places may it not be as clearly inferr'd as if the word Keys were it self mention'd and that it is so as it is manifest by what hath been already said so it is the common Opinion of the Fathers * Tertul. de pudicitia c. 21. Cypr. Epist 23. ad Jubaian et de Unitat. Eccles Hilary l. 6. de Trin. col 74. Hieron l. 1. advers Jovinian August Serm. 108. de divers Bed. Hom. de Sanct. Petro. and of many learn'd Men of the Church of Rome †Barlaam de Primat Papae l. 2. Pet. de Alliaco Qu. in suis Vesp n. 20. Ejusd lib. de Eccles et Cardinal Authoritate parte 1. c. 1. Tractat. Cancell Parisiens de Potestat Eccl. et Orig. Juris Consid 5. Richer de Ecclesiast et Polit. Potest n. 2. et 6. and is no more than is taught by the Roman Catechism in citing Mat. 18. 18. Joh. 20. 23. together with Mat. 16. 19. to prove that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the Church ‖ Catechis Rom. parte 1. de decimo Symb. Artic. S. 4. all which for brevities sake I remit the Reader to in the Margin and shall transcribe no more than the words of the Sorbon Doctor before quoted This Power saith he of the Keys which Christ promises here to Peter he afterwards in the very same words promises to all the Apostles Mat. 18. 18. and after that gives it to them all Mat. 28. John 20. They are very much mistaken who think the Keys were given to Peter alone but the Antients were not of this Opinion who with unanimous Consent teach that these Keys were in the Person of Peter given to the whole Church * Hanc enim potestatemclavium quam Christus hic Petro promittit iisdem deinde verbis omnibus omnino Apostolis promittit Matth. 18. deinceps cunctis largitur Matth. 28. Johan 20. Illi igitur oppido falluntur qui soli Petro datas claves esse autumant At non ita Antiqui qui unanimo consensu tradunt claves istas in persona Petri totae Ecclesiae datas Du Pin dissertat 4. c. 1. p. 307 308. But he says If it be granted that the Apostles had the Keys by virtue of these places of Scripture yet it doth not follow they had them in the same sense and amplitude that Peter had †Pag. 160 161. Doth it follow that they had them not in the same sense and amplitude But this is not now the Question but whether they had them and that they had them by virtue of these Texts every Roman Priest will be forced to grant or to break that solemn Oath he hath taken to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous Consent of the Fathers ‖ Bulla Pii 4ti super forma Juramenti To his Question If either or both these Places were equivalent to dabo tibi Claves what reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular and general Promise of them * Pag. 161. If by a particular Promise he means a Promise to St. Peter in particular and by a general Promise the same Promise made to him and all the Apostles together with him S. Cyprian shall return the Answer He first gave the Keys to Peter alone to manifest that Unity he would have in his Church and to make him the Original and Pattern of it †Nam Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in Caelis c. Epist 73. ad Jubaian Or if St. Cyprian's Authority be thought too little let him take it from Pope Leo I. That is not in vain commended to one that is intimated to all to Peter therefore singly this is committed because Peter's Pattern is proposed to all the Governours of the Church ‖ Transivit quidem in Apostolos alios vis istius potestatis sed non frustra uni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur Petro ergo singulariter hoc creditur quia cunctis Ecclesiae Rectoribus Petri forma proponitur Our Saviour therefore having served this design in making the Promise first to Peter singly he afterward makes the same Promise to them all If he shall ask why he promised them to Peter again when he promised them to all It is as wise a Question as if he should ask why a Universal includes each Particular contained under it But that which follows next is most admirable that whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts they being spoken conjointly to the twelve Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any he need not fear but he is so far in the right but having over and above his Portion in this joint Promise a particular one apart to himself in which the rest were immediately no Sharers it cannot be disproved but by virtue of this singular separate Promise made to him personally in the Presence of the rest that he had the Keys either alone or if the Power of the Keys was afterwards given to the rest that he was supreme in it If by this particular this singular Promise this Promise made to him personally he mean a Promise of any particular or singular Power besides that which was promised to the rest he supposes that which he should first have proved and which I have already confuted If he means that Promise made to Peter particularly and singly which was afterwards made to all the Apostles at what an absurd rate does he talk A Promise is made to twelve jointly the very same Promise neither more nor less was before made to one of these twelve apart therefore this one hath either himself alone that which is promised to all the twelve or if the rest have it he hath it in a higher Degree than they Or thus If a Promise be first made to one Man singly and the same Promise be afterwards made to this one and many more together the making the Promise to him first singly either excludes all the rest from any share in it or gives him a greater share
in it than they For instance the King promises to A in particular to give him a Captains place he afterwards promises the same Preferment to A B C D E F together A because the Promise was first made to him alone must either alone be made Captain and B C D E F excluded or if B C D E F be made Captains A because it was first promised to him must be made their Colonel or General These are good Consequences by the Discussor's Logick and therefore he spae more Truth than perhaps he was aware of when he said that Disputation was an Employment not only discordant to his Temper but surmounting his Abilities I have said enough to ruin the first Proposition Proposition II. The second is this that Peter received the Keys immediately from Christ but the other Apostles from or by him Peter says he did not receive them so as to retain them solely to himself but to communicate them to the other Apostles * Pag. 162. And again they then may be said to receive the Keys secondarily derivatively participatively by their associating adhering and communicating with him their Head †Ibid. The Falseness of which is so manifest that one would think none but a Man who had never read the New Testament could have the Face to offer it to those that have for can any thing be more evident than that these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. were spoken by Christ himself immediately to all the Apostles And when that Power was actually conferr'd that was here promised was it Peter or Christ that said to them As my Father hath sent me so send I you c. Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose Sins ye retain they are retained Was it not Christ that said to them immediately Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature But instead of multiplying Proofs from Scripture I shall rather send him to his Master Bellarmine whom in this Point he deserts That the Apostles received their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ and not from St. Peter he proves by four Arguments 1st By those Words of Christ As my Father hath sent me so send I you Which place says he the Fathers Chrysostom and Theophylact so expound that they plainly say that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of Christ yea that they received the very Office and Authority of Christ 2dly By the choice of Matthias into the place of the Traitor Judas For we read Acts 1. that Matthias was not chosen an Apostle by the Apostles but his Election being begg'd and obtain'd from God he was numbred among the Apostles But surely if all the Apostles had their Jurisdiction from Peter that ought most especially to have been shewn in Matthias 3dly It is proved from St. Paul who professedly teaches that he had his Authority and Jurisdiction from Christ and thence proves himself to be a true Apostle Gal. 1. And that he might shew that he received not his Authority from Peter or the other Apostles he saith When it pleased him who separated me from my Mother's Womb and call'd me by his Grace to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles immediately I conferr'd not with Flesh and Blood c. 4thly By evident Reason For the Apostles were made by Christ only as appears Luke 6. He call'd his Disciples and chose out of them twelve whom he named Apostles c. But that the Apostles had Jurisdiction is manifest by the Acts of St. Paul who 1 Cor. 5. excommunicates and 1 Cor. 6 7 11 13. and frequently elsewhere makes Laws and also because the Apostolical Dignity is the first and supreme Dignity in the Church as is manifest 1 Cor. 12. Ephes 4. c. I think Bellarmine hath said more than enough for the Confutation of the second Proposition ‖ De Rom. Pontif l. 4. c. 23. I therefore proceed Proposition III. That the Power of the Keys communicated to the other Apostles was inferior and subordinate to a higher degree of it in St. Peter so says the Discussor I shall here only maintain the inequality inferiority and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles to an higher sublimer and compleater degree of it in Peter * Pag. 162. But that there was no such inferiority or subordination in the other Apostles as he vainly fancies will soon appear by consulting that place where the power of the Keys before promised was actually given to St. Peter The words by which it was conveyed are these As my Father sent me so send I you and he breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose soever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whose soever Sins ye retain they are retained †John 20. 21 22 23. In which words we have these two things First That the power of the Keys is here given to the Apostle Secondly That this Power is here given equally to Peter and the other Apostles that is in as high a degree to the other Apostles as it was promised to Peter Matth. 16. 19. First That the power of the Keys is here given all those who own the Doctrine Authority of the Church of Rome and by consequence the Discussor himself will be forced to grant 1. Because this is expresly taught by the Fathers 2. Because it is also taught by the Roman Catechism and the Council of Trent 1. This is no new Conceit of Hereticks but it is expresly taught by the Fathers whose unanimous Judgment in the interpreting of Scripture every Priest of the Church of Rome as I said before is by solemn Oath obliged to follow If that which is said says Origen I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven be common why not all the rest BUT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN OUR SAVIOUR GIVING THE HOLY GHOST BY BREATHING SAYS RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST ‖ Tractat. 1. in Matth. The Lord says Cyprian speaks to Peter I say unto thee And altho to all the Apostles after his Resurrection he gives equal Power and says AS MY FATHER SENT ME SO SEND I YOU * De Unitat. Eccles All the Apostles says Gaudentius upon Christ's Resurrection receive the Keys in Peter nay rather they receive with Peter from our Lord himself the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom when he saith to them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. †Postea vero pro commisso scelere jam damnato Juda omnes Apostoli Christo surgente in Petro claves accipiunt Quinimo cum Petro caelestis regni claves ab ipso Domino accipiunt quando ait illis Accipite Spiritum sanctum c. Tract quem prima die ordinat quorund Civ Notarii accep That ye may know says Austin that the Church received the KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven hear in another place what the Lord says to all his
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
after this manner Either 1. Because these words I will give thee the Keys were directed to Peter alone tho meant to all the Apostles as St. Ambrose Or 2. Because to represent Unity the Keys were given first to Peter only which were afterward given to all the Apostles as St. Cyprian held That Bede cannot mean by the Words he quotes that Peter had any Degree of Power above the other Apostles is manifest in that he expresly attributes to them all the very same Power of binding and loosing that was given to Peter This Power says he is without doubt given to all the Apostles to whom Christ said in general after his Resurrection Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye remit c. ‖ Haec potestas sine dubio cunctis datur Apostolis quibus ab eo post resurrectionem dicitur Accipite Spiritum sanctum c. In Matth. 16. 19. And he says the same again presently after the Words quoted All therefore that he means by the Keys being given to Peter prae caeteris is this that they were given to Peter first and to the other Apostles after his Resurrection He acknowledges St. Austin affirms the Keys to be given to the Church when they were given to St. Peter * Pag. 165. But he cannot see that this diffringes the least ray of Claritude from his Glory but rather gilds it with a more radiant Lustre Yea with a lustre so radiant that it hath quite put out his Eyes for he must be blind who cannot see that this is utterly inconsistent with a Supremacy of Power in St. Peter Not if rightly understood says he for if you consult his Writings you will find the reason which moved him to affirm this was because Peter represented the Church now in what Quality he represented it he discovers himself in his Tract ult in Johan Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui Primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam And in Psal 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini Beatus Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatus principatum tenens But by his leave St. Austin in these places tells us only the Reason why he represented the Church not in what Quality he represented it He did bear the Person of the Church propter Apostolatus sui primatum propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit and Apostolatus principatum tenens that is by reason of the Primacy of order or Precedence he had among the Apostles for this is the Primacy St. Austin means as appears by his own Words in the place quoted by the Discussor himself in the next Page such a Primacy from which not the least ray of Sovereignty can be derived This he supposes was the reason why our Saviour made choice of him to represent the Church rather than another But to say he represented the Church in the Quality of its Prince or Governor is non-sence A Prince as such cannot represent his Subjects nor any Governor those under his Government Besides that these very places of St. Austin he produces are a direct Contradiction to this Conceit as may appear by a short Reflection upon them The first with the addition of those Words he hath omitted as not for his turn is thus in English Of which Church PETER for the Primacy of his Apostleship did bear the Person the whole being figured in him For as to what properly appertains to him he was by Nature one Man by Grace one Christian by more abundant Grace one and the first Apostle But when it is said to him I will give thee the Keys he signified the whole Church c. ‖ In which Words these two †Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam Quod enim ad ipsum proprie pertinet natura unus homo erat gratia unus Christianus abundantiore gratia unus idemque primus Apostolus sed quando ei dictum est Tibi dabo claves Universam significabar Ecclesiam In Evang Johan Tractat. 124. things may be observed each of which is destructive of the Discussor's Notion 1. That St. Austin makes him bear the Person of the Church neither as an Apostle nor as the prime Apostle this is evident by the Words sed quando He was an Apostle yea the prime Apostle but when it was said to him I will give thee the Keys he signified the Church He did not therefore represent the Church as he was the prime Apostle 2. That he bore the Person of the Church only as he signified the Church And has he that signifies another Dominion over him whom he signifies as for instance the Ambassador over his Prince The next place will give us a farther Proof of the Discussor's fair dealing For as some things says St. Austin are said which may seem properly to belong to the Apostle Peter which yet have not a clear Sense unless when they are referred to the Church of which he is acknowledged to have born the Person in a Figure by reason of the Primacy he had among the Disciples as is that I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and if there be any such like so Judas after a certain manner sustains the Person of the Jews the Enemies of Christ c. ‖ Sicut enim quaedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum proprie pertinere videantur nec tamen habent illustrem intellectum nisi cum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figura gestâsse personam sicuti est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum siqua ejusmodi ita Judas personam quodammodo sustinet inimicorum Christi Judaeorum c. In Psal 108. Why did he here omit the Words in figurâ unless because they were not favourable to his Design And why did he cut off all that concerns Judas but because he saw it was plainly against it These things are here observable 1. That I will give thee the Keys though spoken to Peter yet cannot have a clear Sense unless it be referr'd to the Church 2. That there might be other such things said to him 3. That Christ did not promise him the Primacy when he promised the Keys for he had that before 4. That he did bear the Person of the Church in a Figure 5. That Judas after a manner sustained the Person of Christ's Enemies and in another place he says not after a manner but absolutely that one wicked Man signified the Body of the Wicked as Peter did the Body of the Good the Body of the Church * Tractat. 50. in Evang. Johan Now will the Discussor say that Judas had Jurisdiction over the Body of the Wicked †See Epphata c. 1. It is irksom to insist on these things I shall therefore pass over his next Quotation from Serm. 23. de verb.
Domini by an error of the Press I suppose put for Serm. 13. which is as little to the purpose as either of the former and shall desire the Discussor to resolve me these two Questions 1. Whether every one of the Apostles received the Keys as Head of the Church because they are all by St. Austin joined with Peter in representing the Church For having quoted the Words of our Saviour As my Father sent me so send I you Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted c. He adds If therefore they did bear the person of the Church and so this was said to them as if it was said to the Church it self ‖ Sicut misit me Pater et ego mitto vos ergo si personam gerebant Ecclesiae sic eis hoc dictum est tanquam ipsi Ecclesiae diceretur c. De Baptismo Contr. Donatist l. 3. c. 18. 2. Whether St. John was the Primate of the Church Triumphant The ground of the Query is because St. Austin in this same Tractat quoted by the Discussor makes St. John the Figure of the State of the Church in Heaven as he does St. Peter of the State of the Church on Earth But it tends much to Peter 's Glory that in St. Austin 's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he How much soever it may otherwise tend to his Glory nothing of Dominion can be hence inferred Nor is this Glory so appropriated by Austin to Peter but it is by him ascrib'd to the other Apostles together with him as I have shewed before But how bright soever this Glory may be in it self the Discussor has here drawn a Vail over it by making him who before received the Keys as their Prince to receive them now as their Proxy for so he adds in the same Page He received them immediately They received them by a Proxy c. Now a Proxy as such hath not one Ray of Claritude by which he outshines those whose Proxy he is When Optatus says That he alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be COMMUNICATED to the rest he doth not mean to be communicated by him but by Christ as a Roman Doctor expounds it * Et claves regni Coelorum communicandas caeteris id est quas Christus commendaturus erat caeteris Du Pin. Dissertat 4. c. 1. And the preference Optatus there gives to him consists in this that he alone received the Promise first which was afterwards perform'd to all the rest As to what he adds concerning Matth. 18. 18. That the Fathers expound it of fraternal Correption If he mean all or the greater number of the Fathers it shews either his Ignorance or his Insincerity Of those four he mentions Origen I grant does so Chrysostom Maldonat says speaks obscurely that he knows not whether he was of this opinion or not but in another place he as plainly as words can make it applies this Text to the Apostles only †De utilitat Lect. Script Tom. 5. p. 590. Edit Front. Duc. St. Jerom he palpably abuses by quoting his Words on ver 16. whereas he expresly expounds ver 18. of the Power given to the Church of binding and loosing The words cited from St. Ambrose I know not where to find but I suspect he has dealt as fairly with him as with St. Jerom. The remainder of this Chapter is either ridiculous or impertinent except that he says St. Jerom in his Comments on Matth. 16. speaking of the Power of Keys acknowledges Peter to have received it SPECIATIM Which is not I grant impertinent but that which is much worse a downright Falsity For in his Comments upon that Chapter the word Speciatim is not to be found nor any other of a like import relating to St. Peter Nor yet those Words he quotes as following after it Proposition IV. That by the Keys promised and given to PETER is meant the supreme Power of governing the Vniversal Church ‖ P. 133 134. This will be dispatched in a word If he meant Supreme in a negative sense viz. that Power than which there is none in the Church higher it would be true but then in this sense Supreme Power was given to every Apostle But as he means thereby a Power superior to that of the other Apostles by which Peter was constituted their Governour so it is false For since as has been already proved and as the Sorbonist before-quoted affirms * Primum est Petro promissas esse eas ipsas claves quae postea caeteris concessae sunt ac proinde per claves hic non intelligi ut vult Bellarminus summam potestatem in omnem Ecclesiam Ellies du Pin. dissertat 4. c. 1. p. 309. the very same Keys promised to Peter were afterward granted to the rest therefore by the Keys cannot be here understood the supreme Power over the Whole Church What he produces for proof is of no force St. Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour by virtue of his Promise of the Donation of the Keys did not only give S. Peter Power over the whole World but to rise a Key higher EVEN OVER THINGS IN HEAVEN †Pag. 134. And S. Chrysostom also says of S. Paul That he took upon him the whole World And of all the Apostles in common That not Nations and divers Cities but the World was committed to them as we have before heard And to rise to the higher Key Did not Christ give to the other Apostles the same power over things in Heaven when he said to them Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in HEAVEN And does not the same Chrysostom speaking of these Words Matth. 18. 18. say of all the Apostles They sitting upon Earth give Sentence and the virtue of their Sentence passes to the Heavens As Emperors sitting in some one City give Sentence and constitute Laws but the Power of their Sentences and Laws runs through all the World so the Apostles sitting in some one place ordained these things but the Power of their Laws and Bonds did not pass through the World only but ascended to the very Height of the Heavens ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. De Utilitat Lect. Script p. 590 591. He adds the Keys likewise Apoc. 1. 10. signifie supreme Power where our Saviour says of himself I have the Keys of Death and of Hell by which Phrase absolute Dominion over Death and Hell are indigitated * Pag. 134. But were these Keys in St. Peter's keeping Had he absolute power of raising the Dead No he will say he doth not quote it to this purpose but only to shew that the Keys in this place signify absolute Dominion over that which is spoken of Suppose they do so here what then Do the Keys signify as much when attributed to Peter as when attributed to Christ Is there no difference between the Keys in the Hands of the Master of the Family and
the Apostles says Barradius because he answered first what they would have answered * Dicitur tamen pro caeteris Apostolis respondisse quia quod illi fuerant responsuri respondet primus Comment in Concord Hist Evangel Tom. 2. l. 10. c. 22. Peter saith Tirinus as he was first constituted by Christ in the College of the Apostles so surmounting the rest in Dignity and Zeal nothing doubting as well IN THE NAME OF THE REST as in his own Name as the MOVTH OF THEM ALL He presently most plainly and boldly answered THOV ART CHRIST c. †In Matth. 16. v. 16. What shall we say if Bellarmine himself asserts that the other Apostles knew this Mystery as well as Peter So he plainly does For in answer to an Objection of Illyricus he says thus The Faith or Confession viz. of Peter may be considered two ways either absolutely in it self or with relation to Peter The Adversaries seem to resolve his Faith to be the Foundation of the Church the first way but they are certainly deceived for if it were so the Lord would not have said Vpon this Rock I WILL BVILD but I DO BVILD or I HAVE BVILT my Church For many had already believed that he was the Son of the living God as the ancient Prophets the blessed Virgin Simeon Zacharias John the Baptist THE APOSTLES AND OTHER DISCIPLES ‖ Respondeo fidem five confessionem duobus modis posse considerari uno modo absolute secundum se ac sine relatione ad Personam Petri altero modo cum relatione ad Petrum c. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 10. I know Bellarmine afterwards makes it one of Peter's Prerogatives that he alone knew this Mystery by a peculiar Revelation * De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 19. But who can help it if he contradicts himself But what shall we say if the Discussor himself grant what he so stoutly denies viz. That the rest of the Apopostles knew Christ's Divinity This I think he does in going about to prove that they did not equally know it with Peter †Pag. 88. For to say that they did not equally know it plainly implies that they indeed knew it It is also observable how wisely he says Now if the other Apostles did equally know it with Peter and he only spake their Sense for them As if he could not speak their Sense unless they not only knew it but equally knew it with him And as if to speak their Sense were the same thing as to answer for them For though he could not answer for them unless he spake their Sense yet he might speak their Sense though he did not answer for them as Tostatus Maldonat Salmeron Barradius c. have determined His distinction of nominal and natural Filiation ‖ Pag. 90. hath been already considered and also his Quotations out of S. Ambrose Of the rest of the Fathers whom he finds acknowledging Peter first to know and first to confess Christ's Divinity * Pag. 91. there is not one of them except St. Hilary who says That he first knew it but only that he first confess'd or publish'd it and in saying that he first confess'd it they imply that the other Apostles knew it I have said enough yea too much to expose the vanity of this first Conceit The prime foundation therefore being raz'd the other which depends upon it falls of it self However I shall bestow a few Lines upon it that the Discussor may not pretend that he is not answered SECT II. The second ground he lays of St. Peter's Supremacy is That he knew Christ's Divinity by a special Revelation For tho Peter 's Confession did exceed that of others yet this says he was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honour but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolick Society illuminating him with a particular Revelation c. †Pag. 80. And again The Father and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles and honour him particularly with a Revelation ‖ Pag. 81. And again I will never be induc'd to believe otherwise than that St. Peter 's Revelation did discover to him more than either what he or they knew before otherwise it had been of no import * Pag. 90. And so again and again as if he thought he could make up what was wanting in proof by the frequent and impertinent repetition of it I know not any that would induce him to believe otherwise than that God revealed this to St. Peter that this Revelation discovered to him more than what he knew before that all the forces of Man's Wit all human Wisdom Industry and Sagacity could never have arrived to it without a Revelation Nothing of this is the matter in dispute but whether this Revelation was peculiar to Peter And 1. I have already shewed that it was not so by proving that his fellow-Apostles knew the same thing and by consequence had the Revelation of it as well as he And whereas he says we may find the Fathers assert this by the following Quotations Therefore 2. I have carefully read over all those Quotations and cannot find that so much as one of the Fathers quoted assert it They say indeed that Peter had it by Divine Revelation which is no more than our Saviour plainly tells us But they do not say that he only had this Revelation or use any such Words as exclude the other Apostles I shall instance in two or three of his Quotations that the Reader may see how pertinent they are Peter was declared blessed having spoken the things of God †Pag. 80. Is not this much to the Purpose Again he pronounces Peter blessed because he received his Knowledg from the Divine Grace And is not this every-whit as much Once more As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth who was thought worthy to be proclaim'd blessed because the Father revealed it to him But is it said the Father revealed it to none but him The Discussor perhaps may say this is imply'd though not expressed How so because they mention Peter only The reason of that is because our Saviour directed his reply to Peter only and there was good reason why he should do so though he meant it to the whole Company because Peter alone had return'd the Answer to his Question but as he answer'd not for his single self but for them all so Christ's return to him must be extended to all For since they all knew it as has been prov'd and since they could no other way attain to this Knowledg than by Revelation it might therefore as truly be said to James and John Blessed art thou James and blessed art thou John for Flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven And 3. This is no more than what Origen plainly asserts If this saying I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of