〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a first starting or hopping or skipping as the Doctor paints to himself in his deluded fancy for St. Peter did not merit any thing by speaking first and so preventing them by the glibness of a voluble Tongue but by the eminency of his Faith by his anticipating the rest in the knowledge of that Mystery Hence 't is as Jansenius observes Cum Chrysostomus alii eum vocant Os nomine omnium respondisse non sic accipiendum quasi responderit id quod omnes sentirent sed quia solus responderit quod omnibus respondendum fuisset Now if the other Apostles did equally know it with Peter and he only spake their Sense for them I shall with Maldonat ask this Question Si pro omnibus Petrus loquebatur cur non omnibus dictum beati estis Cur non omnibus mutata nomina Cur non omnibus dictum vobis dabo c. Besides it seems strange to me that the rest should be able to understand this Mystery without a Revelation and that Peter who in other things was more forward and penetrant should here be so dull and unapprehensive as not to discover this without a particular Beam from the Father of Light for had he understood it before the Revelation had been superfluous But herein Dr. Hammond was pleas'd to lend me his charitable Hand by clearing up this doubt to me in these words I must in Charity says he believe that some other of the Twelve acknowledg'd the Divinity of Christ and had it reveal'd to them by the Father This seem'd at first very apposite but when I considered that the Doctor could not possibly prove any Revelation either at or before that time concerning the Divinity of our Savior to any of the Twelve but to Peter I concluded that what the Doctor was pleas'd to call Charity was really Policy So I left him and apply'd my self to St. Hilary as being the abler Man and he acquainted me that the other Apostles were ignorant of it on Matt. 13. Ignorantibus caeteris primus Respondit Tu es c. And Cyril in his 11th Catech. inform'd me That the other Apostles were silent at our Saviours Question because it was above Humane reach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All the Apostles being silent for this Doctrin was above the power of Humane Apprehension Peter the Prince of the Apostles c. And accordingly Hilarius Lib. 6. de Trin. acknowledged it to be Vltra humanae infirmitatis modum This Doctrin as St. Ambrose affirms Lib. 4. Lucae a Human Mind could never comprehend Plenâ rationis investigatione This made the other Apostles to hesitate and fluctuate not knowing what Answer to shape to this sublime Question as Basilius Seleucius observ'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But whom say ye I am He suspended them all in silence and seeing their ignorance he suggested to Peter an Answer from God Now what concerns the other Apostles altho' I grant that they took Christ to be the Shiloh or Messias yet that did not imply to them his being Gods Natural Son Per identitatem substantiae but rather an Imputative or Assumptive Son And this their belief did amount to no more than this Credimus te esse Messiam quem scimus vocari Filium Dei Now altho' they call'd him Filius Dei and thereby seem'd to know his Name they were ignorant of his Nature whereas Peter by vertue of his Revelation knew both Complexus est omnia qui nomen naturam complexus est as Ambrosius says And herein lies the difference 'twixt Peters knowledge and theirs For the true knowledge of the Messias consisted in knowing his Nature as Hilarius observes Gloria Revelationis Naturae scilicet non nominis cum frequentata nominis professio jam fuisset 'T was ordinary and common with them to call an egregious Person Filius Dei Hence the Seamen upon his appeasing the tumultuous Sea called him so 'T is not at all probable that such rude illiterate People should know the Mystery of the Trinity his Consubstantiality with God The Centurian likewise in St. Mark says of him Vere hic homo filius erat Dei which saying is very well explain'd by St. Luke Vere hic homo justus erat this word Filius is ascrib'd to Men as well as Christ as Chrysost affirms in his 4th Hom. de incompreh Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is properly attributed to him improperly to Men and accordingly St. Amb. Lib. 1. de fide Filius aut per adoptionem aut per naturam est per adoptionem nos filii dicimur ille per veritatem naturae est Having plainly evidenc'd the difference 'twixt Peters Sentiments of Christ and that of the other Apostles I shall add this That the Fathers when they incidently say That the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God before Peters promulging him so do mean thereby his Nominal and not his Natural Filiation If they do not mean so they must prove that the others had Revelations of that kind for I will never be induc'd to believe otherwise than that St. Peters Revelation did discover to him more than either what he or they knew before otherwise it had been of no import That which confirms me in this my Opinion concerning the Fathers is because I find St. Ambrose in one place to affirm that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God as well as Peter and in another place to seem to appropriate it wholly to him Lib. 4. Lucae Et si aliis imperatur ut laxent retia sua soli tamen Petro dicitur duc in altum hoc est in profundùm disputationum quid enim tam altum quam altitudinem divitiarum videre scire Dei filium professionem divinae generationis assumere and accordingly he explains duc in altum in his 3d. Book de Virg. duc in altum ad filium altissimi non ducebat in altum quando in stagno piscabatur By these Quotations he plainly ascribes to Peter only the knowledge of the Divine Generation And in his 84th Serm. he makes him to excel in Faith and consequently in his Confession Petrus solus Christum Dei filium confitetur gradus quidem sunt fidei qui devotius credit religiosius confitetur Besides this I find several of the Fathers acknowledging Peter first to know and first to confess Christ his Divinity Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignus judicatus est qui quod in Christo Dei esset primus cognosceret Et in enarrat Psalm 131. he calls him Primum filii Dei confessorem And accordingly St. Cyrill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter first confess'd the Faith St. August Serm. 124. de Temp. Hic est Petrus qui Revelatione Divinâ primus omnium veritatem meruit confiteri dicens Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi And Origen in his Comments on St. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reading of the Scripture makes
was not pronounc'd Blessed And likewise by St. Chrysost in his 17th Hom. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son of God is not King of Israel but of all the World Now tho' the words that Nathaniel spake do resemble Peters as St Austin in his 6th Tract of St. John observes Talem vocem protulit Nathaniel qualem Petrus yet Chrysost conceives the Sense of them to be very foreign and remote from St. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Nathaniel spake the same words but not with the same meaning for Peter confessed him the Son of God as truly God but Nathaniel as a meer naked Man These things being duly weigh'd in just Scales your Argument that Nathaniel knew our Saviours Divinity because he call'd him Filius Dei seems to me very feeble and invalid that Title being given usually to Persons eminent for Sanctity who are no Natural but Adopted Sons of God Sons by Election not Generation as Rom. 8. Quicunque Spiritu Dei aguntur ii sunt filii Dei And John 1. Dedit eis potestatem Filios Dei fieri And in Gen. 6. Seths Sons are called Filii Dei not by Nature but for their Temeperance Justice and Sanctity by which Divine Imbellishments Humanity approximates to Divinity and may be said to be ally'd to it It remains then to assert that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles that knew the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour he attaining to the knowledge of this most lofty Truth not by the dusky twilight of the shady Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not making use of penetrating subtilty or persuaded thereto by Humane Reasonings but having his Vnderstanding enlightned by God the Father Or as Origen has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a light beaming from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God himself says Athanasius in his 4th Orat. cont Arrianos Patris ipsius enuntiatione filium Dei Christum ipsum esse agnovit as Just in affirms in Tryph. Haec fides paternae revelationis est munus says Hil. 6. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Petrum Eliam Peter who confessed the Truth by a Divine Revelation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Eccles hier Illuminated by the Divine Revelation of the most Sacro-sanct Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor Peter was assisted by God in laying a sure Foundation of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Dial 4. de Trinit God the Father from above manifestly discovering his proper Son Thus having so glorious and able a Tutor who together with his Divine Doctrin could bequeath a Capacious Suscipient Apprehension he first knew that the Word was made Flesh the Mystery of the Trinity and the Distinction of the Persons He then knew him as the splendor of Gods Glory and Figure of his Substance Heb. 10. He knew him as one in whom the plenitude of the Deity inhabited Corporally Col. 2. He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as one sitting on the same Throne with God as of the same Glory Nature and Substance as of the same Power Glory and Soveraignty He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the proper Son of God the only Son having no other Brother He knew him as Origen has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As that select Son he by way of emimence THE SON He knew him to be the Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Properly not Catachrestically Naturally not by Adoption He knew him not as one advanc'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a Servant to an Adopted Son but as a Son begot from Eternity by an inscrutable incomprehensible Generation as may be gathered out of the Greek Fathers to whom I shall adjoin some of the Latins that you may see how accordantly they conspire in this Point St. Ambrose Lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto accosts our Savior in this manner Vnum te esse cum Patre dixisti quia hoc credidit Petrus Claves regni Coelorum accepit And again speaking of Peter's Confession he acknowledges it to include Non adoptionis nomen sed naturae proprietatem non creationis in eo ignobilitatem sed nativitatis gloriam And St. Austin in his Serm. 144. de Temp. says That Peter did not look on Christ as unus ex Prophetis sed ut filius adimpletor Prophetarum Creator Angelorum And in his 26. Tract on John Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi non sicut aliquis magnus justus sed sicut unicus sicut aequalis He then knew him as Filius Altissimi Luke 1. as Filius unigenitus John 3. as Filius proprius Rom. 8. as Filius verus John 1. 5. This his Confession St. Austin calls Vera plena Confessio Chrysost calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A compleat Confession and it could not but be so since it was not Peters conjectural Apprehension but the Fathers Doctrin and Suggestion This Confession Christ commends partly from its Effect Being Beatitude partly A causa procreante which was the Father this he amplifies Antithesi causae disparatae judicii vel virium naturalium to shew that all the Forces of Mans Wit all Human Wisdom Industry and Sagacity could never have arriv'd to it without a Revelation This Christ approves of not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Human Opinion but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Divine Decree this according to Chrysost he illustrates and explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As you are are the Son of Jonas of the same substance so am I consubstantial with my Father This Confession he strictly charges them to conceal as being too sublime to be divulg'd whereas Nathaniel had liberty to publish his This Confession our Saviour not only own'd but accepted of Peters person which Theophyl says Was a sign that all other Mens Opinions of him were false 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly our Saviour was pleas'd highly to reward Peter for the Merits of this Confession and this is the concurrent suffrage of all the Fathers I shall here insert the Sayings of some of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil advers Eunomium Lib 2. Peter who for the acknowledging the Truth was honoured with the Beatitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Ancorate Peter says thou art the Son of the Living God and Christ presently declares him Blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Therefore he is pronounc'd blessed and entrusted with the Church St. Hierom says on Matt. 16. Testimonio de se Apostoli reddit vicem dixerat Petrus tu es Christus filius Dei vivi mercedem recepit vera confessio Beatus es Simon Bar-jona c. St Austin Serm. 13. in Matt. Deinde addidit ego dico tibi c. Tanquam diceret quia tu dixisti mihi Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi ego dico tibi quod c. Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignum plane confessio Petri praemiùm consecuta est I shall add no more Testimonies to strengthen this Point but
p. 27 CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation p. 34 CHAP. V. Of Communion in one kind p. 43 CHAP. VI. Concerning Publick Prayers in Latin and of several other Points p. 50 CHAP. VII Concerning Protestants objecting Errors to the Church of Rome The Authors Apologie for himself His Advice to the Protestant Divine with some other Particulars p 56 PART II. CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter's Supremacy and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter p. 67 CHAP. II. The difference betwixt Nathaniel's and St. Peter's Confession of Christ and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum p. 74 CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ p. 86 CHAP. IV. Concerning Christs Reply to St. Peter's Answer Whether the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy be grounded on Scripture Of Christs being the Rock and St. Peter's being the Rock Of St. Austin's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram p. 95 CHAP. V. Concerning St. Peter's Faith or Confession being the Rock And how those Fathers who Interpret that to be the Rock Exclude not his Person p. 109 CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place p. 117 PART III. CHAP. I. Of the Keys That they denote Supreme Power Whether Sobna were High-Priest Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs The differenoe betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood p. 133 CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. p. 144 CHAP. III. Of the Keys In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest That what Christ reply'd was directed immediately to Peter only In what Sense 't was extendible to the Rest How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church receiv'd the Keys in St. Austin's Sense Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys With Advice to him p. 156 CHAP. IV. Of St. Peter's being call'd Satan And of his Denial p. 171 CHAP. V. The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission Why St. Peter was sorry for Christs thrice asking him The Reason of the trine Interrogation That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only p. 176 CHAP. VI. That St. Peter's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation That Peter by vertue of Pasce Oves meas had Vniversal Jurisdiction Several nice Distinctions answered That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor With an Apostrophe to him p. 190 CHAP. I. Containing the Introduction and concerning St. Peter's True Successor SIR I Had no sooner perused the Papers you sent me but by way of a Letter I imparted unto you my Sense of 'em and withal acquainted you that I would answer ' em But having at that time Imbarqu'd my self in a particular Study which my Genius warps to with a stronger propension than to Controversal Points in Divinity I could not prevail with my relucting Fancy to relinquish it and reassume Polemics till I had conducted it to a Completion But I need not make use of any excusive words for this my long silence matters of so high importance as I am now about to handle ought to be maturely perpended and not spurred on with a hurrying precipitancy However if the adjournment of this my rejoynder hath seem'd to you too long protracted I am content to afford you a proportion'd consideration for your forbearance which you shall find lapp'd up in these Papers As for Disputation I am not so much a forreigner to my self as to be ignorant of its being an imployment not only discordant to my Temper but surmounting my Abilities requiring a richer Exchequer of Learning than I can pretend to So I would not have you figure to your self that I catch at the name of a Disputant I yield that Dignity to those whose politer Temper and more embellish'd Parts entitle 'em to that Honor. But if my Talent did excell this way I should very unwillingly grapple with so topping an Antagonist as you are It might seem presumption in me who am but a Laic to enter the List and take up the Gantlet against so eminent a Controvertist But that which makes me more backward herein is my fear you being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of incurring the displeasure of the rest of your Coat who like the Bells in Joves Dodonean-Grove hang so close together that if one be touch'd all of 'em sound this inconvenience I have fully surrounded so I shall not here so much pretend to oppose you as to defend my self which in Honour I am oblig'd to do And I hope hereby I shall not disgust any Ingenuous Person for you having answered me so briskly and so convincingly as you fancy'd I could do no less than try whether your or my Opinion were erroneous and so expiscate the Truth which I find not to float on the Surface of the Well but to dive very deep according to the saying of Pyrrhon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth lies at the bottom It will then be my present employ to examine those Papers which I composed both for the Satisfaction and Defence of my Brother and withal to bring your Answer to a strict Disquisition this is my whole proponiment my pretensions aspiring to no more than what every Christian ought to have a short Scheme and Diagram of his Religion which is what St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a Platform of Sound Doctrine is attainable by one of the Laity if he will bend his Mind to the Acquisition of it and not indulge himself in a lazy desidious acquiescency For as St. Chrysost affirms Serm. de Sigillis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Soul hath in it self the Seed of Divinity Now if it ever were necessary to possess such an abridgment of wholesome Principles 't is much more so in this humorous inquisitive Age which presents us with so many varieties of false Opinions dress'd up in the semblance of Truth that if a discerning Circumspection be not made use of the fallacy may pass
and perplex'd that I think no Point stands more in need of an Assistant Hand to unclue its Intricacies and to restore it to its native undisguis'd Visage than this And if as Greg. Nazianzen affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Truth is with difficulty demonstrated and made visible This may seem to require more pains than most others to represent it clear and manifest it containing so many difficulties seemingly insuperable and so many Knots inextricable that to solve all the Doubts and Objections about it would be a very fit Task for an Elias to undertake For tho' this Point has had very Eminent Champions who with the richest Bullion of their Learning and Florid Eloquence have maintain'd it yet has it had no want of considerable Opposers to impugn it who guided either by their Judgment or Interest have not fail'd to make a fair Scene and Pomp both of their Reading and Talents to undermine it I who incidentally fell upon this Subject am not insensible of its being too Sublime for me to handle nor ignorant of its being too momentous and weighty for me to sustain its Pondure but finding my self engag'd therein and discovering in my self a particular curiosity in penetrating deeper into it I shall not now stop my pursuit and indagation after it but continue the quest till I have given my self full satisfaction and rescu'd this Captive Truth from those Fetters you have enchained it with in your obscure Durance And as you have united all the Forces of your Wit to the numerous Auxiliaries of Quotations and Spoyls of plundred Authors pressing even the unwilling Fathers to fight for you in defence of your Opinion so I question not but to meet you with as great a strength and to vie and drop Citations with you attended with larger Shoals and Clouds of Testimonies Now tho' this is likely to prove a toilsome and operose Province yet I am resolv'd to undergo it hoping to meet with some alleviation of my Fatigue in the detection of your Errors which cannot be but delectable and satisfactory for as we have in us a Principle of Abhorrency from being impos'd on so we are naturally endow'd with a strong Appetite and bent to the investigation of Truth and as Cicero observes Veritatis luce menti hominis nihil dulcius nothing is more luscious and pleasing to our Natures than Truth This is that fine Mistress which Men of all persuasions pretend to Court but is enjoy'd by few most being cheated by the Counterfeits and Impostures of Error dress'd up in her semblance for Error Fallacy and Deception arise from the appearance of some similitude as Aristotle observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when one takes a Parhelion for the Sun or embraces a gaudy painted Vapor for Juno This is the Method which St. Chrysostom says the Devil takes in deceiving Mankind he introduces Error into the company of Truth then he paints it with his deceitful Colours adding some false Strokes and lineaments whereby it may somewhat resemble Truth and thereby cozen the seducible His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall now gird my self to the performance of what I have undertaken detecting those many false semblances you have made use of to countenance your Opinion and laying bare all those Deceits you have covered with the specious Mask of the Authority of the Fathers refining the Truth from those Adulterate Mixtures you have endeavoured to debase it with by rendring it pure and unalloy'd The first thing that encounters my view is your accusing me of laying a false Hypothesis at the Foundation of St. Peters Supremacy by my asserting that he first knew Christ's Divinity This you deny affirming St. Andrew and Nathaniel to have got the start of him in the knowledge of that Mystery Now because the Foundation of every Fabrick ought to be firm and strong to support the Superstructure I shall throughly dissect those Reasons you have made use of as so many Machins to evert and undermine my Hypothesis and manifest unto you how unsufficient and unable they be for such a Design and withal discover with what false Topicks you have deluded your self The Argument you use to evince St. Andrew elder in the knowledge of Christ's Divinity than St. Peter is deriv'd from the first Chapter of St. John where it appears that St. Andrew was the first of the Apostles who acknowledged our Saviour for the Messias Now say you he first knowing him to be the Messias consequently knew his Divinity because in the 9th of Isaias v. 5. the Emanuel is styl'd God This your Argument do's not seem forcible to me For tho' I grant that the Messias is called so by the Prophet yet it do's not follow that St. Andrew by the Hebrew word El or Deus which was not Gods Incommunicable Name but Jehovah should know the Messias to be the natural Son of God of the same essence and substance with the Deity but rather that he apprehended him as some eminent Person extraordinarily endow'd by God sent to free the Jewish Nation from the Bondage of the Romans to whom they were subjugated This is Theophyl his Opinion they did expect that their Messias should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Saviour and Redeemer from those afflictions which lay upon them and from the yoke of Bondage which the Romans had impos'd on them and to Reign in a Terrestrial Kingdom This seems to be their plain Sense of the Messias and accordingly in the following Verse of Isaias 't is said of him Super solium David super regnum ejus sedebit This made Nathaniel after he had confess'd Christ to be the Son of God to add Tu es Rex Israel This made the Apostles before our Saviour's Resurrection ambitiously to court the highest Preferment and Dignity in his Kingdom looking on it as Terrene Aspectable and Pompatick And we find Cleophas no meaner a Person than the Brother of St. Joseph the Father of the two Apostles St. James and St. Jude very intimate with the whole Apostolick Quire in the Twenty fourth of St. Luke to describe our Saviour in the Character he gives of him not as the Consubstantial Son of God but as an Eminent Man an Illustrious Prophet Jesus Nazarenus qui fuit vir Propheta potens in opere Sermone c. Hence Theophyl takes notice of his diminutive thoughts of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See what a low and slender Opinion they had of our Lord they call him a Man a Prophet such an one as Elias or Moses Then he freely discovers what great expectations they had fomented of his glorious Atchievements Nos sperabamus quod ipse redempturus sit Israel upon which St. Ambrose in his Ninety sixth Psalm Enarrat glosses thus Jam spem perdiderant non enim dixerunt speramus eum redempturum sed sperabamus quòd esset redempturus Israel And accordingly Theophyl observes that they spoke this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as defeated
of their Hopes and Expectancy Thus it seems apparent that they looked on their Messias as one that should be Israels Restaurator Redemptor Liberator as one sent to raise up the fallen Kingdom of Judea and to restore it to its Pristine Glory and to file its Lustre as Radiant as it was in the Golden Days of King David and Solomon But to come to the Hebrew word El or Deus which is the very Lock in which the strength and nerve of your Argument lodgeth none can by that word prove the Hypostatick Union in the Messias that he should be very God of very God God by Essence and Nature because he is called El for in the Old Testament I find not only Angels but eminently Potent and Godly Men are called Elohim Thus in Psalm 138. In conspectu Angelorum psallam tibi in the Hebrew 't is Elohim and in Psalm 8. Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis 'T is likewise Elohim in the Hebrew And in Psalm 82. Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum in medio autem Deos dijudicat Here the Eminent Judges are called Elohim or Gods and in the same Psalm likewise Ego dixi Dii estis Moses is also called God and that by God himself Exodus 5. Dixit Dominus ad Moysen ecce constitui te Deum Pharonis which Hilarius in enarrat Psalm 136. took notice of Invenio Mosen Deum nuncupari cum ei dicitur Deum te posui Pharaoni Hence Philo Lib. primo de Mose says Cum amicorum omnia sunt communia Deus potestatem opes suas cum Sanctis communicat and St. Basil Hom. de Spiritu Sancto says That Holy Men are called Gods for having the Holy Ghost dwelling in them St. Cyril l. 7. c. 12. John observes that the word Deus in Holy Writ is taken in a triple Sense First by Nature as Audi Israel Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus Secondly By Adoption or Participation by which they who are Adopted to be Sons of God become partakers of the Divinity and are called Gods Thirdly Falsly so call'd and only nominally as the Devils and Idols as it is in Psal 49. Omnes Dii Gentium Daemonia Now that which I deduce from hence is this That notwithstanding St. Andrew had known that the Messias was called by Isaias El or Deus it do's not at all follow that by that Description he should conceive him to be the Son of God by Eternal Generation that being a Mystery which was inaccessible to Humanity without a Revelation and not knowing him to be such a Son of God he was ignorant of his real Divinity This Recondit and Sublime Mystery did transcend all the Natural Wit and Subtilty both of Men and Angels and was unattainable without a Celestial Illustration therefore Christ calls the manifestation of it a Revelation as of a thing hidden and abstruse as Theophyl observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls the Knowledge of this Mystery a Revelation as a discovery of Occult and unknown things made manifest by the Father And accordingly Origen acknowledges that St. Peter arriv'd to this Knowledge not by Humane Skill or penetrancy of Wit but by illumination from the Heavenly Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter as a Disciple not of Flesh and Blood but of the Father in Heaven comprehending the Revelation confess'd him to be THE CHRIST But wholly to elucidate the inconcludency of your Argument that St. Andrew must necessarily know the Divinity of the Messias because Isaias calls him Deus to this I answer That 't is apparent by the 24th of St. Luke that the Apostles did not understand the Prophets till our Saviors Resurrection for in the 45th Verse he then opened their Understanding to apprehend the Scriptures and in the 27th Verse he beginning from Moses and all the Prophets interpreted them to his Disciples CHAP. II. The differenc betwixt Nathaniel 's and St. Peter 's Confession of Christ and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum MY next employ shall be to ventilate the Confession which Nathaniel made of Christ and try whether it be of the same stamp and import with St. Peter's The first I shall consult with herein shall be Theophyl who in his Notes on the Frst Chapter of St. John gives this account of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding that Nathaniel do's confess Christ to be the Son of God yet he do's not confess him as Peter did He confessed him the Son of God as true God therefore he receiv'd the Beatification and was entrusted with the Church but Nathaniel confessed him as a meer Man gratiously adopted by God for his Vertue for he was not as yet arrived to the perfect knowledge of the real Deity of the only begotten Son St. Chrysost likewise in his 55th Hom. on St. Matt. makes Nathaniels Confession and that of others to be quite of a different nature and of no Cognation with Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not consess such a Filiation as Peter did but look'd on him as one of those many Sons which God had but as the most eminent and choice of them all but not as of the same Substance with God And in the same Homily he declares that St. Peter knew him as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Proper Natural Son and therefore rewarded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why was St. Peter pronounced Blessed because he confessed Christ to be the Natural Son of God upon that score he pronounced none of those who confessed him before Blessed This is likewise the Opinion of Epiphanius adver Cath. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he clearly confessed him the true Son of God for in saying he was the Son of the Living God he demonstrated him to be his Natural Son Now if Nathaniel as you affirm made a true Confession of Christ before Peter what Reason can be given that Christ who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no respecter of Persons should give that reward of Beatus es c. to Peter which Nathaniel did more deserve if as you say he first made true Confession of him Now as for Nathaniels Confession it was so far from deserving a Reward that coming short of the Truth as Chrysost affirms in his 55 Hom. Matt. it was derogatory to Christ for what could seem more lessening and eclipsive of his Lustre and Excellency who both in Essence and Glory was equal to God the Father than to be look'd on as an Eminent Man as a Petty King Rex Israel He that holds the whole Fabrick of the World in the hollow of his Hand King of Kings and Lord of Lords is by guileless Nathaniel entitled but as King of Judea whereas Peter looked on him as the Monarch of the unbounded Universe This Flaw was observ'd in Nathaniels Confession by Theophyl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he had confess'd him God indeed he would not have call'd him King of Israel but King of the Vniverse therefore he
pro omnibus unus pro multis unitas pro universis Domine ad quem ibimus Repellis nos a te da nobis alterum te Peter likewise spake for them all when he said Ecce nos reliquimus omnia secuti sumus te Hence Christ answers to them all in the Plural Number Dico vobis quod vos qui secuti estis me c. And likewise when in John 6. 69 he says We belive and know that thou art Christ the Son of the Living God Here he undertook by answering for the Rest to give an account of their Faith but he committed a great mistake therein for Christ told him that that was not the belief of all of them one of them being a Devil When they were all accused as warm'd with new Wine Peter makes an Apologetical Harangue in the defence and name of them all By these Passages 't is obvious and transparent that Peter herein was the Representative of the Apostolick Society venting in these his Responsals their joint and united Opinions so I shall supersede a further pursuit herein and make it my present business to inform my self in what Sense some of the Fathers entitle him Os Apostolorum whereas indeed they had as much liberty and freedom of speaking to our Saviour as he had The most Radiant and Plausible Opinion amongst them for their dubbing him their Speaker was because they look'd on him as their Prince and thus it may not improperly be said in a subordinate Sense that what was spoken by the chief of the Society was said by the whole Company he representing them all as their Head and Prince and in this Sense it is that Cyril acknowledges Peter to have answered for the Rest as is apparent in several places of his Comments on St. John Princeps Caputque caeterorum primus exclamat Tu es Christus c. Per unum qui praeerat omnes respondent Per Principem consortii haud dubitant exclamare Tu es Christus c. And accordingly 't is very familiar with Chrysost after he has styl'd him The Mouth of the Apostles to join another word with it which denotes him to be chief as in his 55th Hom. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again on the 87th Hom. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was the Prince of the Apostles and Mouth of the Disciples the Supreme top of the Society 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Prince of the Apostolick Quire the Mouth of the Disciples De occursu Domini Thus St. Hierom who acknowledges that Peter did profess this Truth ex persona omnium acknowledges him to be their Head St. Cyprian in his 55th Epistle declares that Peter answered for all of them but confesses he did this as the Representative of the Church Vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce Respondens St. Austin fancies he only answered to preserve Unity Vnus pro multis dedit responsum unitas in multis And in his 118 Tract de Temp. Ideo unus pro omnibus quià unitas in omnibus But in Serm. 13. Evang Matt. He gives Three chief Reasons why Peter is said to be their Speaker First Because he is the Type of the only Church Then because he was the Prince or Chief of the Apostles Lastly Because he was most ardent in his Affection towards Christ Petrus unicae Ecclesiae Typus ipse in ordine Apostolorum primus in Christi amore promtissimus saepe unus respondit pro multis 'T is customary with St. Austin to affirm that Peter represents sometimes the Church sometimes the Apostles the Church he represents as its Head and Rector the Apostles as their Primate as will hereafter be made out and in this Sense he is called their Speaker not as if he were their Atturney or Praeco but their Princeps CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ THe next thing I am oblig'd to Discuss is Whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as St. Peter had when Christ propos'd this Question to them Vos autem quem me dicitis esse So that Peter herein may be said to have spoke but their Sense and that they knew and could have answered the Question as well as he This is in short what you affirm and what is attested by Modern Protestant Writers Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter says thus of him Do's he confess Christ the Son of God Besides that herein he speaks but the Sense of all the Rest this was no more than what others said as well as he Nathaniel expresly told him Thou art the Son of God This is likewise Dr. Barrow's Sense of it only he delivers it more Sportively and Comically in his Treatise of the Supremacy p. 43. But who say ye that I am up starteth Peter he skippeth forth and preventeth the other Apostles not ignorant of the Point they took Jesus for the Messias which according to the common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God they had the same Faith he from a special alacrity of Spirit and expedition in utterance more forward in declaring it This Opinion seem'd to me very thin and silly That Christ should propound a Question to a Dozen Persons which he knew any of them could solve and make honorable Promises only to him that should speak first seem'd to me a childish fancy and beneath the Conceptions of a Doctor this being not to reward an Excellency of Faith but the promptitude of a nimble Tongue which has nothing of Merit in it Having now mentioned the two above cited Doctors I shall add something more to their Quotations Peter is said to answer for the Rest not as if he spake or knew their Opinion on this Point for the Question was ask'd by our Savior on a sudden and it do's no where appear that the Apostles had any Praecedaneous Conference or Consultation about it but because his Answer thereto was Orthodox they were oblig'd to own and embrace it as the Common Belief of the Church And I conceive that upon our Saviors asking the Question the rest being silent and suspending their Answer Peter first spake not their Common but his Particular Sentiment Suam fidem pro se professus est says Jansenius Pro se solo respondit says Abulensis and this he did as one made more knowing than the Rest being instructed in this Mystery by a particular Revelation from the Father He then being more fervid than the Rest inflam'd by this illumination from God and instigated thereto by a Divine impulse hastned with all speed to describe the Son as the Father had instructed him lest any of the Twelve should speak any thing beneath and unworthy of Christ and so be rebuked by him as they often were This is what St. Chrysost means when he says Peter