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
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
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
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
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
in the hands of his Steward A twofold difference at least must be grantend one in the Quality the other in the extent of the Power denoted by them 1. In the Quality The Keys in the Master's Hands denote an Original Absolute Supreme Power in the Steward's a Power delegated and subordinate to that of the Master Thus the Keys in Christ's Hands signify Supreme Power but if when given to Peter they denote the same Supremacy then there must be two Supreme Powers over the same Family which is a plain Contradiction Yea since as I have proved the same Keys were afterwards promised to and conferred upon all the Apostles if they ever denote Supremacy of Power there must be as many Supremes as there were Apostles 2. In the Extent of the Power the Master's Keys extend to the whole Family be it never so large the Stewards to that part of the Family only over which he is set Thus for instance the Lord high Steward of the King's Houshold his Power is limited he hath no Authority over the Officers of his Majesty's Chappel of his Chamber of his Stable c. Now the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is Christ's Family that part of it in Heaven the Discussor I think will not affirm that it is subjected to St. Peter but to Christ immediately That part on Earth is subdivided into particular Churches as so many lesser Families over which Christ hath appointed there shall be so many Stewards one Steward over one part another over another As therefore we find not in Scripture any one Steward set over the whole so we read of many Stewards with respect to the parts St. Paul and all the rest of the Apostles were Stewards in this Family as well as Peter or else St. Paul was out in his reckoning when he said to the Corinthians Let a Man so account of us as of the Ministers of CHRIST and STEWARDS of the Mysteries of God †1 Corinth 4. 1. Yea the same St. Paul supposes every Bishop to be a Steward of God ‖ Tit. 1. 7. But I need not insist longer upon such little Arguments CHAP. IV. THE next Chapter I may be allow'd to pass over for it no way tends to St. Peter's Glory that Christ said to him Get thee behind me Satan I know not who those several are that object as if by calling him so Christ had evacuated what he promised him before * Pag. 172. And he might well have spared the Pains he put himself to in proving the contrary Nor was the Denial of his Master a Ray of Claritude but by the Gentleman 's own Confession an Eclipse It was says he a short Eclipse a Trip rather than a Fall a verbal rather than a real a labial rather than a mental Abnegation †Pag. 174. O his excellent Faculty at ringing Changes upon Words Of those several Reasons the Fathers alledge why God permitted him to fall into this Offence in the fourth viz. because Christ designing him to be the SVPREME Ruler of the Church that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor penitent Sinners in absolving them c. ‖ Pag. 173. I desire him to leave out the Word supreme because it is not found in any of those Fathers he quotes for the proof of it 'T is true as Peter denied him so the rest fled for it †Mark. 14. 50. But why should he cite Theophilact for this I am apt to think St. Mark 's Authority might have been as good Nor do I deny but it will lessen his Fault If we consider the Dirity of that dreadful time when he denied his Master it was says he when the Power of Darkness ruled with his black Scepter it was when the Sun was obtenebrated the World shak'd with unusual Tremors and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder * Pag. 175. Though by the Discussor's leave it was not when but after he had denied Christ that the Sun was darkn'd the Earth quak'd and the Rocks rent I shall not enquire the reason why he passed over St. Peter's other Faults especially considering that he found an Answer prepared to his hand by Bellarmine but shall proceed to Chapter 5. We are now come to those Words Feed my Sheep which the Discussor finds to be strongly urged by Catholick Writers as he calls them in Defence of Peter 's supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction and impugned by Protestant Authors with all their Force c. I never before heard of any Protestant that impugn'd the Words but only that Sense the Papists would wrest them to which is so absurd that a very little Force will serve not only to impugn but quite to overthrow it as will appear by a view of the Particulars 1. We shall not much differ about the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says signifies to rule and govern as well as to feed This he sets himself to prove both by Reason and Authority By Authority both Christian and Heathen He first cites St. Austin St. Ambrose and Theophylact and then interposing a Reason he proceeds to Suetonius Dion Plato Homer Hesiod Cyril Xenophon St. Basil Methink St. Cyril and St. Basil come in a little odly among his Heathen Fathers But why doth he again prodigally expend his Oil and Pains in proving that which no Man questions Consult all the Protestant Commentators and see if any of them denies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule as well as to feed To what purpose then is all this waste I must acknowledg my want of Augury to divine unless it be to let the World see what a Man of reading he is And yet after all let the word signify what it will it can import no more than what belong'd not only to the other Apostles but to all the Bishops in common with them for Saint Paul exhorts the Elders of Ephesus to feed the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †Acts 20. 28. the very same word our Saviour here used to Saint Peter And Saint Peter himself uses the same word in his Exhortation to the Jewish Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feed the Flock of God which is among you ‖ 1 Pet. 5. 2. Yea the Council of Trent which to a Papist is of as great Authority as the Holy Scripture after it hath shewed what is the Duty of all those who have the charge of Souls admonishes and exhorts them all That being mindful of the Divine Commands and an Ensample to the Flock they would in Judgment and Truth FEED and RVLE them * Sacrosancta Synodus eos admonet exhortatur ut Divinorum Praeceptorum memores factique forma gregis in judicio veritate pascant regant Sess 23. de Reformat c. 1. How vain then is Cardinal Bellarmin when he says That from this word it is easy to demonstrate That supreme Ecclesiastical Power is given to Peter †De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c.
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
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.