from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Grotiâ—â— in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot
that lie between us And so still I discern not wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those with whom I now dispute being content that it should by others be judged excessive CHAP. IX An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter Sect. I. The hinderances of Communion imputable to the Romanist not to us Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit one of our grounds What is meant by Ecclesia Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great whether we respect their weight or number yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise these may for a while detain us also Num. 2 In his 9th Chap saith he he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of this division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed because he doth not desire it Now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing lesse What then will they contest it by all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their Major but then their defence is if any ground or rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question they will contest that point by those grounds and is not this a goodly excuse Num. 3 The designe of Chap 9. of the Treatise of Schisme is to vindicate us from all guilt of schisme as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion that acknowledge the foundation and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external communion with all members of all other Christian Churches the result is visible that the hinderances that obstruct this freedome are wholly imputable to the Romanist such are their excommunicating us and imposing conditions on their communion such as we cannot admit of without sin or scandal acting contrary to conscience or making an unsound confession Num. 4 To this all that is answered is that unlesse this second be proved viz that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion the first that of our desire of Communion is vain And to this I make no doubt to yeild for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion and yet wilfully withdraw our selves from it then I confesse there is no place for this plea of ours But for the contesting of this there was not then neither will there now be any place without descending to the severals in difference between us which was beyond the designe either of those or these Papers and therefore for that all that can be said is that we are ready to maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by And because it is here askt whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds I answer without question it is and so is every other affirmation of Christ or the Apostles however made known to us to be such And I cannot sufficiently admire why when it is known to all Romanists that we are ready to be judged by Scripture and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit are the words of scripture he should suppose as here he doth that we will say No i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman which he calls Catholick Church but then this interpretation or understanding of his is one thing and those words of Christ are another for they belonging to the Church indefinitely under which any man that hath offended is regularly placed doe to a member of the particular Roman Church signifie that as to an English man the Church wherein he lives and that is not the Roman or the Vniversal Church of God and that is more than the Roman Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome to which we owe no obedience and are as ready to contest that by the same means also exacts of us Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us and withall have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists Num. 1 IN his view of Chap 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them 1. judging 2. despising their brethren but contents himself with a very brief reply and that onely to one of them Thus Num. 2 In his 10th Chap he saith we judge them and despise them as to the first I have often wondred and doe now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we presse it upon them out of love and kindnesse to keep them from the harm that according to our belief may come upon them but since they deny they are Schismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought untill we have cause to believe them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed judgment against them Num. 3 The want of charity with which we charge the Romanist in this matter is not their warning us of our danger which may reasonably be interpreted love and kindness and care to keep us from harm and if they erre in admonishing when there is no need of it there is nothing still but charity in this but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score that we consent not to all their Dictates that we withdraw our obedience from those who without right usurped it over us their anathematizing and damning us and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures unlesse we will change or dissemble our beliefs and as there cannot be charity in this any thing that can tend to the mending of any for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any to forsake his present perswasions whilst he is
our obedience supposing the Bishop of Rome formerly to have been our Primate Num. 13 But if the pretensions be higher even for the Supremacie it self either in whole or in part then 1. I may surely say they were never bonae fidei possessores of that And 2. that the King who by being so is supreme in his own Kingdome and cannot admit of another supreme either in or out of it hath all the advantages of possession which are here spoken of by this Gentleman and must not be divested of his right nay must not cannot remaining a King divest himself of it nor might any without the guilt of rebellion quit his obedience to him Num. 14 Lastly to remove all appearance of reason from this whole exception 1. It is manifest that at the time of casting out the power of the Pope out of this Kingdome there were I must have leave to suppose convincing reasons given for the doing of it A breviate of which the Reader may finde in that one Treatise mentioned in the Tract of Schism p. 135. De verâ differentiâ Regiae Ecclesiasticae potestatis then composed and published by the Bishops and since reprinted by Melchior Goldastus in Monarchia tom 3. p. 22. under the title of opus eximium a very notable excellent work 2. That how meanly so ever it hath been performed yet this was one special design of the Tract of Schism which this Gentleman saith will alwaies lie upon Protestants to prove the Pope to have no such authority from Christ as the Romanist pretendeth him to have And this I hope may suffice to be said to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his prelusory skirmish against this fourth Chapter Sect. II. The condition of S. Peter's Province The Apostles distribution of their great Province the World into several portions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. the interpretation thereof vindicated Num. 1 I Proceed now to his refutations of the first evidence I make use of to disprove the Pope's claim to universal Primacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter Num. 2 My evidence is taken from the condition of S. Peter's Province as by agreement betwixt him and his fellow Apostle S. Paul it was assigned him Gal. 2. 7 9. that he should be the Apostle of the circumcision or Jewes which certainly was not the whole world exclusively to the Gentile part or the uncircumcision which was remitted to S. Paul both there and Rom. 11. 13. and this as is there specified in every city where they met together And because the universal extensive commission of Christ to all and every Apostle giving them authority to go and preach to the whole world might seem to be contrary to this special assignation I took care to prevent this objection by premising that this commission given by Christ indefinitely and unlimitedly and extending equally to the whole world was restrained by some subsequent act or acts of the Apostles themselves who distributed their universal Province into several portions and assignations called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 portions of Apostolacy and the several Provinces where they were thus to labour styled each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to each an assigned peculiar place Act. 1. 25. Num. 3 Now to this groundwork of my insuing probation he makes his first exception in these words As for his Proofs which he calls Evidences he telleth us first that S. Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles To prove this he saith the Apostles distributed their universal Province into several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by his interpretation lesser Provinces and citeth Act. 1. v. 25. where S. Peter with the other Apostles prayeth God to shew which of the two proposed he was pleased to have promoted to the dignity of being an Apostle this they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this rigorous interpreter saith it signifies the special Province S. Matthias was to have though the Scripture it self expresseth the contrary saying the effect was that afterward he was counted amongst the Apostles Could any man not blinded with error make so wretched an interpretation but he goes on presently adding that S. Peter in the same place calleth these particular Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will you know what this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proper place is read the Text and you shall finde that S. Peter speaketh of Judass ' going to Hell to receive his eternall damnation Methinks you should wonder I can go on without astonishment at such blasphemous explications for sure it can be no lesse so to abuse the Word of God and after this what doe you expect Num. 4 Here are two great charges the first introduced by styling me a rigorous interpreter and prosecuted by affirming me blinded with error my interpretation wretched and contrary to what the Scripture expresseth But the second is of no lesse than blasphemy and abusing the Word of God and his friend is to wonder that he is not astonished and after I have been guilty of such crimes as these 't is in vain forsooth to expect any thing from me the whole insuing discourse is utterly defamed and blasted like Philopemen's good counsel in the Senate of Lacedaemon by being delivered by so ill a man so infamous a person as a blasphemer is justly deemed by him Num. 5 But I am not to be disquieted with this or to prepare any reply to the Rhetorical passionate part of it if the interpretations shall be found agreeable to Scripture the astonishment and the outcrie will be soon at an end And therefore that is the onely care that I shall here assume on me Num. 6 And 1. I shall suppose it evident from the story and from the very end to which this commissionating so great a number of twelve Apostles was designed that all the Apostles were not to go together in consort to preach unto all the world It would have been long ere the Faith would have been propagated to all the world if this slower method had been taken Num. 7 To this it is consequent that our Saviour having left the world in common before them the distribution of that one wider into severall lesser Provinces must be an act of the Apostles themselves as when God had given the land of Canaan to the 12 tribes of Israel Eleazar and Josua and the heads of the Fathers of the tribes distribute to every tribe their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or portion which because it was to continue to their posterity we ordinarily style their inheritance Jos 14. 1. Num. 8 And as there is no doubt of the truth of this fact so if this one thing be granted me there is no more incumbent on me to prove in this matter and though neither of those phrases Act. 1. 25. should be for my turn yet my conclusion remains good to me as farre as it pretendeth to be deducible from those phrases viz that the Apostles
distributed their great Province the whole world into severall lesser Provinces one or possibly more than one to go one way the other another Num. 9 It was therefore ex abundanti more than was necessary that I annexed the use of those phrases to that purpose not undertaking to prove this as this Gentleman saith by those texts much lesse Peter's being Apostle of the circumcision which was a consectary and had its several probation afterwards but onely accommodating those phrases to the matter in hand and by the way assigning what I thought the most probable notion of them Num. 10 And although it be still as unnecessary to impose my explications on this Gentleman the conclusion having as yet no use of them yet being obliged to give him such an account of my actions as may free me from blasphemy and abuse of the Word of God I shall here adventure to make my apologie by premising 1. not out of Grammarians onely but out of the Scripture it self the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifying originally a lot or way of division into severals of that which belongs to all in common one means of setling propriety among men it comes next by an easie figure to signifie that which is thus divided or which in the division falls to every man as his portion Num. 11 So saith Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the verb signifies distribution both active and passive and accordingly in the son of Syrach we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 division of or by lot Ecclus. 14 15. and by that we may understand a lesse obvious expression c. 37. 8. beware of a counseller c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest he cast the lot upon thee i. e. lest he help another to cheat thee and then go sharer with him divide thee betwixt them Num. 12 So in like manner saith Phavorinus of the substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies a part that which falls to one's lot a portion As Act. 8. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 portion and lot are all one And he that hath a possession thus setled on him and dominion by that means or he that undertakes to dresse or till so much land 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord and the husbandman are both the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that hath such a lot or portion assigned him Num. 13 Proportionably those that any Governour of the Church is set over are called his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lot and 1 Pet. 5. 3. such Governours are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to behave themselves as the Roman Pretors were wont to doe over their several Provinces oppressing and tyrannizing over them Num. 14 To this it is agreeable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1. 17. should denote such a portion of ministerial office as belonged to one that was sent or commissionated by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a task or work exprest v. 20. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Episcopal office for that though it be a rule yet is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ministerie Mat. 23. 11. in the Church Num. 15 Hence again that portion of employment in preaching the Faith testifying the resurrection of Christ which belonged to one single Apostle such as Judas was and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which he departed by his sin and to which another succeed◠by way of surrogation is as fitly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a portion of Apostolacy a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or division of that grand employment Num. 16 And what either one single error or act of blindnesse was committed in thus interpreting much more occoecation or being blinded with error which I suppose the compound accumulation whether onely sin or punishment also of many errors what rigor or wretchednesse of interpretation I am still so blinde as not to discern and this Gentleman is not so charitable as to give me his least directions to recover to my way or my eyes again Num. 17 For as to the Scriptures expressing the contrary in saying he was counted among the Apostles that sure is no evidence against my interpretation for Matthias may become one of the twelve succeed to Judas's office and lot that which did or should if he had lived have belonged to him and yet neither he if he had lived nor now Matthias in his stead have more than a particular Province this or that region not the whole world in common assigned for his appartment Num. 18 So that as yet I cannot discern that I have done the least injury to the text in thinking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lot or division of Apostolacy to be the several task that belonged to any of the twelve Apostles or that portion of labour that by consent at their parting one from another should be assigned to each of them Num. 19 And then the analogie will still hold perfectly that as this distribution of tasks consisted in going to severall quarters for the preaching of the faith of Christ one one way another another so he that had received his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 portion of Apostolacy should be said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar or proper place and having so should not immediately but soon after the Ghost's descent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go or betake himself to it Num. 20 This therefore and upon these grounds of fitnesse both in respect of the words and the context I take to be the meaning of that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to his proper place his peculiar assignation And I cannot imagine the least inconvenience that can lie against this rendring Num. 21 For 1. in case it should not be the true yet it can be any thing as soon as blasphemy thus to interpret it 'T is certainly nothing to the dishonour of God to say that Matthias went and preacht the Gospel in such a region peculiarly and so there is no blasphemie in that viz the matter of the interpretation and for the abusing of the Word of God it is hard to divine how that can be deemed such which affixeth nothing to the Word of God but that which is notoriously true for so it is that Matthias went one way to preach the Gospel and S. John and S. Bartholomew each of them another and would be acknowledged to doe so if this text were not applied to it Num. 22 As for the other interpretation of the words which this Gentleman is pleased to preferre and might have injoyed his own judgment without censuring them as blasphemers that differed from him in expounding one difficult phrase by affixing it to Judas and not to Matthias 1. there is no indication in the context that favours that it was sufficient to say of Judas that which had been said v. 16 17 18 19. to set out
the horror of his fact which soon attended it in his own breast and the bloody death which it brought upon him but he needed not proceed to revealing of secrets the sadder consequents which remained in arrear after death and 't is Chrysostome's observation on v. 16. behold saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wise Christian carriage of S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he doth not reproach and insult on him calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 villain or detestable villain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but sets down the fact simply and on v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sets down saith he his present vengeance that sure is it which befell him in this world which by the way cannot well consist with the interpreting it of hell Num. 23 2. The use of Parentheses in scripture is very ordinary and if that be here admitted which it well may without any more formal expression of it than by putting a comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is already in the printed copies then the interpretation is clear and unavoidable to receive the lot or portion of his Ministerie and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell to go or that he may go to his proper place Num. 24 3. Hell being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common place or lot of all wicked men it cannot fitly be exprest with such a double emphasis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place the proper place i. e. the place peculiar to him which yet may very fitly be affirmed of Matthias his Province so his as it was not any mans else Num. 25 Lastly It is not near so proper to say that he sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to hell as that the other was chosen and surrogated into Judas's place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to preach to such a quarter of the world or that the Apostles desired God to signifie his pleasure whom he had chosen that so he might take his portion of labour and go His going was visibly the end intended in all this but damnation or punishment going to hell was never intended by Judas in his transgression though it be supposed the deserved reward and consequent of it Num. 26 All this amassed together may I hope vindicate an innocent and I hope obvious farre from wrested interpretation from such an accumulation of charge as is laid upon it without any tender of reason against it but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wretched blasphemous c. in Lucian And so much in answer to that Paragraph Sect. III. S. Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision The agreement betwixt the Apostles Peter's preaching to Cornelius Num. 1 HIs second exception is to the position it self of Peter's being the Apostle of the Jewes exclusively to the Gentiles and it is in these words Num. 2 His position is a directly against Scripture as if he had done it on purpose the Scripture telling us how by a special vision S. Peter was commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile first of all the Apostles and himself in the Councel of Jerusalem protesting the same and yet this Doctor can teach he was made Apostle to the Jewes exclusively to the Gentiles though all story say the contrary Num. 3 The position which is here said to be so directly against the Scripture was to my understanding the expresse affirmation of Scripture it self I am sure from thence it was that I learnt it and I must fail very much in my expectation if this Gentleman himself doe not acknowledge the testimony produced Gal. 2. 7. to be sufficient ground to inferre it There Peter is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision That the circumcision there signifies the Jews and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Gospel the office of preaching or revealing the faith to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolacy of the circumcision ver 8. if it be not of it self plain enough 't is made so by ver 9. where it is added that Peter c. were by agreement to go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the circumcision where circumcision being the object or term of his motion must needs be the Jewes not circumcision it self and so Saint Chrysostome at large expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to signifie the thing circumcision but the persons the Jewes in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles in the former words and then going to them must needs be preaching to them going to them as to a Province the care of which was intrusted to him and the right hands of fellowship the agreement that was made betwixt them James the Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter and the beloved disciple on one side and Paul and Barnabas on the other side is side is sure the interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the being intrusted or having that as a Province committed to them Num. 4 And this is the special importance saith S. Chrysostome of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but contrariwise the beginning of ver 7. as that is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adding to him v. 6. James saith he and Peter and John were so farre from opposing any thing that he had done from advising any thing more from telling him any circumstance more than before he knew that they not onely approved but commended what he had done and to set the things the more unquestionably for the future made this agreement with him and Barnabas that whensoever they should come to the same city mixt of Jewes and Gentiles Peter and John should betake themselves to the Jewish and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it For as was said it was not by any particular assignation of Christ's but by agreement among themselves that this assignation of Provinces was made Num. 5 And therefore as in point of propriety when that which is supposed to lie by nature in common to all is to avoid contentions and confusions and the state of perpetual hostility so distributed by agreement among the fellow-communers as that one portion shall be assigned as the propriety and appartment of one the other of another then and from thenceforth that which is the proportion of one is so his that it belongs to no other and again so his that he hath no right to any other part which I should expresse by saying that that part is his exclusively to any other part for sure his standing to any such division cuts him out and so excludes him from any farther right so here after this agreement between those Apostles jointly made concerning the two parts of mankinde Jewes and Gentiles to which they were to preach and among whom to preside the Jewes are become S. Peter's peculiar or portion or Province and that so his as the Gentiles were not his they being left to S. Paul and Barnabas who is both there affirmed to have them committed to him