fallaces Opiniones suas conantur defendere as Hilarius attests Lib. prim de Trint Vincent Lyrinensis to the same effect Nihil de suo proferunt quod non Scripturarum verbis adumbrare conentur This they formerly did and still do to reject the Authority of the Church and to avoid a living Judge they appeal to the Scripture then they assume to themselves what they deny the Church it 's Exposition perverting it's true Sense according to their wild Fancies and so crooken the Rule to their own Bent This was observ'd by St. Basil Hexam Hom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These falsifiers of Truth which do not teach their mind to follow the Scripture but contort the meaning of Divine Writ to their own Wills Now tho' the Scripture as being the Word of God is infallibly true yet it do's witness of it self that it is not of private Interpretation and those that dare Expound it that way may instead of sound Truths extract damnable Doctrines St. Austin avouches That all Heresies take their Birth from its wrong Interpretation in his 222 Epistle to Consentius Neque enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene To avoid this we must not Interpret them according to our Fancies but adhere to the Interpretations of the Church not at all questioning but that that Spirit of Truth which did direct it to distinguish Canonical from Adulterine Writ will likewise instruct it in the right Interpretation And herein consists the difference betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks as St. Austin observes Libro de Gratia Haeretici secundum suum sensum Sacras Scripturas legunt but we according to Antiquity and constant Tradition receiving both the Scripture and its Sense from the Church and her Authority is so considerable herein that St. Austin Epist Manich. says Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas The Second Reason is because you pay Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Of this I shall hereafter have occasion to take notice and likewise of your Honesty and Integrity in quoting them The Third Reason to acquit your self of Schism is because you own the first four General Councils and are willing that the difference betwixt you and other Churches should be decided by their Vmpirage but I must tell you That if you own'd Forty Councils instead of Four and revolted from the Church that would not discharge you of the Crime of Schism As for your pretended willingness to admit them as Judges in differences betwixt you and other Churches this will appear to be a very empty Compliment unless you can prove that they made Definitions concerning our Modern Controversies they conven'd to define about the Heresies rise in those days of the Arrians Nestorians Eutychians Macedonians not concerning those of Protestants a word not then known and had their Doctrines been then extant they would as certainly have been condemned as the foregoing I shall only instance in one point in one Council that of Chalcedon I am fully convinc'd that that Council which paid so much respect to Pope Leo acknowledging him to have receiv'd the custody of the Vineyard from Christ granting him when they sent their Relation to him to preside over them by vertue of his Legate as the Head do's over the Members would have severely sentenc'd your revolt from that See That Council which depos'd Dioscurus the Patriarch of Alexandria and consequently no Subject of Leo's as he was Patriarch of the West not for any Erroneous Doctrine but for his Sawciness against him whom they call his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord and because he dar'd to convene a Synod without leave from the Apostolick See would most certainly have condemn'd your defection ftom the Authority of your Occidental Patriarch and more your Opprobrious Revilings of him But why the first four General Councils why not a Stage farther why Hic Terminus haeret Can you prove that all Contests in Matters of Faith arising in future Ages and in much different Centuries could possibly be determin'd in those Councils Would you have an Heresie be condem'd before it be broach'd your referring all our Controversal Differences to their Decision is as irrational as if Macedonius who was condemn'd concerning his Heresie about the Holy Ghost in the Second General Council had appeal'd to the Nicene which assembled chiefly to confute the Heresie of Arrius concerning God the Son and determin'd nothing about the Third Person of the Trinity Besides I know no reason why the Church should be credited in the first four General Councils and slighted and disbeliev'd in the following Christ promis'd he would be with them to the consummation of the World I do not in the least question but that the same Spirit of Truth which guided and directed the Church in its first Synods did accompany it in all its succeeding Conventions rendring it inerrable in its Definitions of Faith I can find no place where Christ promis'd to be with them for a limited time so as to direct them in their first four Assemblies and to leave them for the future to themselves It would have been a great incouragement to all new Heresies if no Decision in Gods Church should have been after the first four General Councils The truth of it is this 'T is usual with Hereticks to be Enemies to those Councils and to reject them that have condemn'd their Opinions charging them with Error as the Arrians did that of Nicene the Nestorians that of Ephesus the Eutichians that of Chalcedon and accordingly the Emperor Zeno being an Eutychian having put out a Profession of Faith which he call'd Henoticon he left out the Council of Chalcedon which had condemn'd that Error embracing only the Faith of the three first Councils The next thing I shall Discourse of will be concerning your Church which you assert to have all the Essentials of a true Church and to be a sound part of the Catholick This I wish you had prov'd as manifestly as you confidently affirm it Had you done this I would never have forsaken its Communion You cannot but imagine it to be a very hard task for any to forsake his Relations his Friends his Countrey-men in Matters of Religion and thereby to expose himself to their Odium the severity of rigid Laws and his Temporal Concerns to ruine nothing but the saving of ones Soul can be preponderant to all these Mischiefs So you may conceive that had I imagin'd my self as safe in reference to my Salvation in your Church as where I now am I had most certainly fix'd my self there Clavo Trabali As to your asserting your Church to have all the Essentials of a true one I must tell you plainly this That I find in the Fathers many to be condemn'd for Hereticks for denying but one of those many Articles which you disown But as for Essentials and Fundamentals I know you pretend to them but I cannot see
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
it evident every where that Peter now first of all confesses Christ to be the Son of the Living God St. Chrysost de negatione Petri introduces him expostulating with our Savior thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not I discover you before all others and cry'd out you are Christ the Son of the Living God And Athanasius in his 4th Orat. contra Arrianos speaking of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At length Christ is confess'd first by Peter then by all of them that he is truly the Son of God From this his first confession of Christ he is called by St. Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foundation and beginning of Orthodoxy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Mystagogus of the Church St. Cyril in his 11th Catech. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Churches supreme Promulger And St. Austin calls him Apostolicus Confessor After all this you are to take notice that altho' I have said Peter was the first that knew Christ's Divinity I have hitherto made a Comparison of him only with the other Apostles with Nathaniel the Centurion and the ordinary Persons Aboard-ship not with the Blessed Virgin Mary whom I dare not affirm or think to be ignorant of that Mystery after she was inform'd by the Embassy of the Arch-Angel Gabriel that she should Conceive and bring forth the Blessed Jesus who should be called The Son of God the Son of the Most High She who was so highly honor'd by every Person of the Holy Triad could not but know the Mystery of the Trinity She whom the Holy Ghost by supervening did ingravidate She whom the Power of the Highest God the Father did Obumbrate She whose Virginal Womb was the Mansion and Mother-Pearl to God the Son cannot rationally be suppos'd to be nescient of his Natural Filiation Yet after all this it seems as if all were not then revealed unto her for she is said to wonder at what Old Simeon told her which is a sign it was new unto her Neither dare I exclude St. John the Baptist from the knowledge of this Mystery he who was fill'd with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers Womb even when he was in that Confinement by his supernatural skipping and exulting may be said to have known him to have saluted him and to have paid him Tributary Homage He who heard a None from Heaven by a Celestial Herald promulging him to be the Son of God He who saw the Holy Ghost effigiated in the form of a Dove descending from above and lighting upon him may very well be imagin'd to have been instructed who he was As for Joseph Zachary and Elizabeth Simeon and Ann the Prophetess who were honor'd with Revelations and Visions fill'd with the Holy Ghost and had the gift of Prophecy if they did not fully know his Consubstantiality they had at least some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some obscure Rays of it and if they knew this imperfectly they clearly knew he was the Savior the Shiloh the Messias I shall add but one thing more on this Subject and that is concerning the Devils knowing of Christ and herein St. Austin is very positive acknowledging but little difference 'twixt their Confession of Christ and that of Peter's as will appear by several passages in his Writings Petrus dixit Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi Dominus Beatus es Simon Barjona c. O Domine hoc tibi dixerunt Daemones quare ipsi non sunt beati quia Daemones hoc dixerunt timore Petrus amore Hom. 6. And in his 10th Tract in Epist Johan Hoc Petrus hoc Daemones Tu es filius Dei vivi Sanctus Dei eadem verba non idem animus hoc Petrus cum dilectione dicebat Daemones sine dilectione In his 16th Serm. de verbis Apost Hoc dixit Petrus audivit Beatus est hoc dixerunt Daemones audierunt obmutescite una vox est sed Dominus radicem interrogat non florem Daemones dixerunt timendo Petrus amando Now how the Devil did arrive to this Knowledge Opinions are various some Divines hold that when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven God revealed unto him that his Son should assume Humane Nature and that Man should be exalted to the Hypostatick Union with the WORD Theophyl says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Thief stole this Knowledge from the Voice from Heaven Augustin Lib. 9. de Civit. Dei says Innotuit eis per quaedam suae virtutis effecta by the operation of so many Miracles wrought by the Finger of God which the Devil knew did transcend his and all Angelical Power Others think he did not certainly know the Incarnation of the Son of God but only suspected it This is the Opinion of St. Chrysostom's Scholiast who upon the Devils pretending to know Christ in St. Mark by his saying Scio qui scis says he meant by Scio suspicor conjector opinor And indeed 't is much to be questioned whether he had firmam certam notitiam adventûs filii Dei for tho' it were granted that he did hear the Oracle of God from Heaven yet on the other side seeing Christ in the form and appearance of an ordinary Plebeian Person Poor Low and Humble and seeming to be in want of Bread he in his Haughty Proud Thoughts pondering the Poverty and Humility of Christ Incarnate did look on this his Lowliness and Condescension incompatible with his Majestick Divinity This made him accost our Savior to satisfie this his Doubt and Scruple which did so much excruciate him but he addresses himself as one doubting Si filius es Dei This is agreeable to the Sense of Theophyl on Matt. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the other side seeing him hungry he began to doubt how the Son of God should be hungry therefore he tempts him that he might be certainly inform'd who he was 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 of St. Peter 's being the Rock Of St. Austin 's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram HAving dispatch'd St. Peters Solution to our Saviors Question I shall next take Christs Reply unto him in to Examination And this tho' it seems in it self to be the plainest and most intelligible thing imaginable as not containing one difficult word in it yet if taken with the Glosses which the Opposers of Peters Supremacy have affix'd to it it may appear to be as knotty a place as any as if the intent of Commentators were not to illustrate dark Texts but to raise Dust and obscure Serene Passages not to dilucidate what may seem dubious and so expose the unquestion'd Truth but to make Scripture serviceable to that Interest and Design they are a moulding of which unwarrantable dealing this place is a most Pregnant Example being by the various Interpretations of Men of different Persuasions rendered perplex'd and impregnated
Christi periculis by repressing the Hereticks Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrin in this case why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem or to the Primate of Africa The Reason given is because they concluded those Hereticks would with more ease yield to Innocentius as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture Now this Power which they did desire him to shew was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal but his Papal Power for Palestine was no Limb of the Western but Eastern Patriarchate and consequently out of his Jurisdiction as he was the Occidental Patriarch This Power of his which they desire him to make use of they acknowledg'd to be drawn out of the Scripture which cannot be made out but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius who having attributed high things to him proves what he says ex dictis Domini I shall now come to take a view of the words which the Fathers in the Milevitan Council of which Austin was one used to Innocentius which in Epist 92. of St. Austin I find were these Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa perniciosa sentiunt cessuros The words are very plain and clearly discovering their Opinion that his Authority was from Scripture but because this is a truth that must be suppress'd 'T is very pleasant to see how 't is deprav'd by Expositors Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae that is says Chamier Tibi veram doctrinam a Scripturis expromenti But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield by quoting of places out of the Scripture and so confute their Heresies that the African Bishops themselves or any other might have done if they had pleas'd but by vertue of his Supreme Ecclesiastick Authority to which the Fathers imagin'd these Heretick would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture This is the genuin Sense of those words but I shall add no more on this Matter but confine my following Discourse chiefly to St. Peters Supremacy First You must understand that I do believe as firmly as you do that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church the Lapis summus angularis a nullo alio dependens the Lapis fundamentalis cui totum innititur aedificium on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and Peter himself is Mystically superedified as St. Austin affirms Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Christ is the Foundation and unmovable Basis of all containing and strengthening all to the end they be well supported for we are all of us built on him Thus you may perceive that we do not go about to despoil our Savior of his due Honor and invest Peter with it as you traduce us with for if he be the Rock of Church much more Christ is to deny which would be Antichristian But Peter is not hereby excluded notwithstanding this but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ And thus St. Basil Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if Peter be a Rock he is not such a Rock as Christ sed sicut Petrus Petra est whereas Christ is really and of himself a Rock unmoveable Petrus autem propter Petram Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial Absolute and Independent Rock the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity whereas Peter is a Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subordinate Vicarious Ministerial by Commission and Derivation from him laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabrick next to himself as Theophyl observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter This thing belongs to you says he as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church Hence you may easily perceive that things Subordinate combate not one with another but suppose one another therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Foundation are no repugnant duelling Propositions but friendly and compatible And thus as it was observ'd by Cardinal Perron Moses saying That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Aegypt to the Promised Land and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel aliud from Christ but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel alterum not alterius generis as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum for as Salmeron well observ'd Respectu Christi non est fundamentum sed aedificatio nec caput sed membrum praecipuum tamen respectu nostri caput fundamentum This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul or else you must grant a Contradiction For as in one place he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation and that no other can be lay'd He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations Now this difference cannot be reconcil'd but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation Hence 't is that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations Fandamentum Christus primum maximum c. Si Sacramenta cogites Christus sanctus sanctorum si gregem subditum cogites Christus pastor pastorum si fabricam cogites Christus fundamentum fundamentorum Thus it seems to be in the Church as in the State For as in the State notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings and Lord of Lords Yet has he establish'd here on Earth Principacies into whose Hands he has committed the Sword whom we are in duty oblig'd to obey so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church and do's rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes yet has he establish'd a Visible Monarchick Government in it with which he invested St. Peter propagating it to his Successors Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter he himself is the main Basis of the Structure and as Christ is the Head of the Church God is the Head of Christ who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholick Church I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock disrobe not St.