Ursicinus cum Ambrosio societur Auxentius Absit hoc a Romana Fide. Had he foreseen the Council of Trent he would doubtless have foretold the time when this Sun would come to suffer a dreadful Eclipse in the Roman Horizon 2. That these words Super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Vpon this Rock I know the Church is built are not to be confined to Peter or his See only Jerom himself hath also taught us For upon these words Her Foundations are upon the holy Hills he says Who may we say are the Foundations the Apostles In them were the Foundations there the Faith of the Church was first placed and there the Foundations were laid †Fundamenta ejus in montibus Sanctis Quos nos possumus dicere Fundamenta Apostolos In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae ibi fundamenta sunt posita Comment in Psal 86. Does he say St. Peter was the only Foundation or more eminently the Foundation No but without making a difference or preferring him before the rest The Apostles were the Foundations In his first Book against Jovinian written eighteen years after this Epistle he expresly asserts That the Church is equally founded upon them all Once more St. Jerom makes all Bishops how much soever one may exceed another in Wealth to be of equal Worth and of the same Priesthood because they are all Successors of the Apostles ‖ Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus c. ejusdem meriti ejusdem est et Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit caeterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Epist ad Evagrium And could he have argued the equality of Bishops from their being the Apostles Successors had he not taken it for granted that the Apostles themselves were equal I shall add this only That in case Jerom had been of opinion that Peter had Authority over the other Apostles yet that he acknowledged no such Authority in the Pope over other Bishops we need go no further than this Epistle to prove in which he calls the Egyptian Confessors his Colleagues * Ideo hic collegas tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor When I reflect upon the Premises I cannot but a little wonder that this Saying of St. Jerom should leave such a deep Incision in this Gentleman's Mind that he needed to repair to any Doctor much less to so great a Doctor as Dr. Stillingfleet for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal it yet supposing him so deeply wounded I do not wonder that he found himself defeated of his desired Satisfaction For is it likely that Patient should meet with a Cure who throws by all the principal Ingredients of the Medicine prescribed and makes Application but of one and the most inconsiderable of them all Those Words he quotes as if they were all the Doctor had said are such as the Doctor himself lays no Stress upon for after them he adds But setting aside what advantages might be gain'd on that account to weaken the force of this Testimony †Rat. Account l. 2. c. 1. p. 31◠And then goes on for more than two Pages together in shewing to how little Purpose this Testimony is alledged which the Discussor has the Face to say he would fain shift off by making it a Piece of Flattery or a Complement to Damasus Behold the Virtue of triple Brass And yet had the Doctor insisted upon it that it was a Complement to Damasus he had said no more than what one of the learnedest Romanists of this age hath said ‖ Quod vero ait Super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio quicunque extra hanc domum comederit Agnum prophanus est c. dictum est officiose per exaggerationem Du Pin. dissertat 5. c. 2. His next Proof is taken out of St. Cyprian Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata * Pag. 125. 'T is strange he should think to find any thing for the Pope's Supremacy in St. Cyprian who to use the Words of a learned Author †Dodw. Disc concerning the one Altar c. c. 9. p. 253. makes all Bishops equal to have the same Power in solidum to be absolute Judges of their own 〈◊〉 and to be accountable to none but God and that there was but one Episcopacy among them all which notwithstanding was possessed by each of them not in parcels but entirely How inconsistent is this with that Supremacy which is challenged by the Pope over all the Bishops of the World However it is certain that this Passage also proves either too much or it proves nothing If when he says the Church is founded upon one it be understood exclusive of the other Apostles it proves too much viz. that the Church is founded not more eminently upon Peter but upon him alone If one be not exclusive of the rest it proves nothing And that Cyprian intended not to exclude the rest from an equal share with St. Peter is also manifest in that he says The other Apostles doubtless were that which Peter was endowed with equal Fellowship of Power and Honour ‖ Hoc erant utiquc caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis de unitat Eccles To reconcile St. Cyprian to himself a learned Romanist gives us this account why in one place he saith the Church is founded upon one and in another place upon many Cyprian saith he in the first Exposition viz. that the Church is founded on Peter seems to exclude the second that it is founded on all the Apostles but in Truth he does not exclude it if his Scope be considered In the first he writes that the Church is founded on ONE PETER that against the emergent Discords of Christians in matters of Religion he might commend the Vnity of the Church In the second he says the Church is constituted on Bishops that the same Vnity of the Church he had commended in ONE PETER he might commend in the MANY SVCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES As if he he should say whether it be one Apostle or many Apostles upon whom the Church is built but ONE Church is built and not MANY Wherefore in the first Exposition he disputes against those who would rend the Church by Schism in the second he reproves the lapsed who also had written to Cyprian himself of the usurped Peace given them by Paul the Martyr * Cyprianus in Expositione prima secundamvideturexcludere sed revera non excludit si scopus operis attendatur In prima super unum Petrum aedificatam esse scribit Ecclesiam ut adversus emergentes Christianorum in Religione discordias unitatem Ecclesiae commendaret In secunda constitutam esse super Episcopos dicit Ecclesiam ut quam Ecclesiae unitatem in uno Petro commendaverat eandem in
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
before me As if the Baptist had thus spake at large This Pearson on the second Article of the Creed p. 218 219. of the first Edit Man Christ Jesus who came in to the World and entered upon his Prophetical Office six Months after me is notwithstanding of far more Worth and greater Dignity even so much greater that I must acknowledg my self unworthy to stoop down and unloose the Latchet of his Shoes And the Reason of this transcendent Dignity is from the Excellency of that Nature which he had before I was for though he cometh after me yet he was before me Again St. John the Baptist prefers Christ before himself in this that whereas he himself had his Original from the Earth Christ came from Heaven and was above all * John 3. 31. thereby signifying that Divine Nature by which he existed in Heaven before he was conceived in his humane Nature of the blessed Virgin. Can it then be in reason supposed that the Apostles knew not this Mystery which John so freely publish'd to his Hearers especially considering that some of the Apostles were the Disciples of John before they were the Disciples of Christ But 4. If the Baptist knew the Divinity of Christ the Apostles we may conclude knew it much rather since besides what they had heard from John concerning it they had learn'd much more from their Master himself by his private Instructions and his publick Preaching Among other things they could not but have observed that he had frequently discovered Mens secret Thoughts and Reasonings that he had affirmed himself to be Lord of the Sabbath and that he had power on Earth to forgive Sins They had no doubt heard him say that God was his own Father and knew that the Jews accused him of Blasphemy for saying so because thereby they concluded he made himself equal with God. These and many other matters of the like import they had heard from his own Mouth of the Truth of which they were abundantly satisfied by seeing him do such Miracles which no Man before ever did in confirmation of what he said The Argument then lies thus If John the Baptist knew Christ to be the Son of the Living God the Apostles of Christ much more knew him to be so because they had not only all the same Arguments that he had but many more from the Words and Actions of Christ himself to assure them of this great Truth Secondly The same Conclusion is as strongly inferred from what the Discussor grants of the Devil's Knowledg and the ways by which he attained to it How the Devils arrived to this Knowledg Opinions he says are various Three of which he mentions The first seems to be of no weight viz. That when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven God revealed to him that his Son should assume humane Nature and that Man should be exalted to the hypostatic Vnion with the Word †Pag. 93. That God revealed this to him when he was a glorious Angel there is not the least proof and in case he did yet unless he reveal'd also that this Jesus of Nazareth was the Man that was exalted to the Hypostatic Union with the Word it will not reach the Point to be determined And he must be a Man of a wonderful fancy who can imagine that this was revealed to the Devil when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven As for the other ways he mentions the Devil had by them no advantage of the Apostles For the next opinion he cites is that of Theophylact viz. that the Thief stole this Knowledg from the Voice from Heaven And why might not the Apostles also get it the same way For though they heard not this Voice immediately from Heaven yet they had the report of it from John the Baptist and as firmly believ'd it as if they themselves had at first heard it The third opinion is that of St. Austin viz. That it was made known to the Devil by the operation of so many Miracles wrought by the Finger of God which the Devil knew did transcend his and all Angelical Power And in this the Apostles who were Christ's constant Attendants and the Eye-witnesses of his Miracles were not inferiour but if there was any difference it may be presum'd the Advantage lay on the Apostles side For tho they knew not how far the Power of Apostate Spirits might reach and whether some of his Works were such as exceeded their Power to effect yet there were others of them and they the far greater part that could leave no ground for any such Suspition but were such unquestionable Effects of a Divine Power that all Mankind have concluded they could be wrought by none but the Finger of God. If then by these means the Devil came to know the Divinity of Christ might not all the Apostes as well know it having the same means of knowing it Let us now see what was the Judgment of the Ancients in this point Thirdly The same Conclusion is also confirm'd by the Testimonies of many more Fathers than are alledged by the Discussor for the contrary He produces three viz. Hilary Cyril of Jerusalem and Basil of Seleucia Let these be yielded to him what will they signify when they are over-voted by a far greater Number The Discussor himself grants that the Fathers incidently say that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God before St Peter's promulging him so But then he says they meant thereby his nominal not his natural Filiation Let us therefore see whether he truly represents their meaning He instances only in St. Ambrose whom he finds in one place to affirm that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God as well as St. Peter and in another to seem to appropriate it wholly to him ‖ Pag. 90. In the one then he roundly affirms that the other Apostles knew it in the other he does but seem to deny it The place he means in which he affirms it is I presume in the sixth Book of his Comments on St. Luke c. 9. Now the Question is whether St. Ambrose in this place meant that the Apostles knew the Divinity of Christ which no Man that impartially reads the Text can so much as question and therefore it was wisely done of the Discussor not to tell his Reader where it was to be found for St. Ambrose there commenting upon St. Peter's Answer as it is recorded by St. Luke Thou art the Christ of God says thus If it was sufficient to the Apostle Paul to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified what more should I desire to know than Christ for in this one Name is the Expression both of his Divinity and Incarnation and the Faith of his Passion And therefore THOVGH THE OTHER APOSTLES KNEW IT yet Peter answers rather than the rest THOV ART CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD he therefore comprised all who expressed both his Nature and his
again Follow me delivering into your Hands the whole World †P. 195 196. Now in all this 1. It is not said that Christ delivered into his Hands the Government of the Apostles or that he made him their Master 2. Here is no more attributed to Saint Peter than what is by the same Saint Chrysostom ascribed to the other Apostles as has been shewed And therefore St. Peter's Power over them cannot with any more reason be inferr'd from these general Expressions than that St. John or any other Apostle had Authority over him For the Apostolical Commission being not limited to any one Nation but expressed in those general Terms Go into all the World Teach all Nations the Fathers therefore reckon'd every Apostle to have the universal Church and the whole World committed to him So that in their account St. Bartholomew's no less than St. Peter's Power was not confined within the limited Tropicks of any particular Kingdom or Regions but without any Boundary or Horizon to terminate it without any Shores or Frontiers to restrain it was stretched and extended over the vast Vniverse Because to whatsoever part of the World any one of them came he had Authority to preach and baptize to constitute and govern Churches This is no more that what is affirm'd by the Romanist before quoted and by him return'd in answer to these places of Chrysostom Theophylact and others of the like Nature It is to no purpose says he what some Men say that the Sheep of the whole World were committed to Peter As St. Leo in his 3 d Sermon of the Assumption Gregory in his 4th Book and 32. Epist Theophylact upon the last Chapter of John and before these Chrysostom in his 87th Homily upon John and his 80th to the People of Antioch ‖ Chrysostom hath but 21 Sermons to the People of Antioch and therefore here is an error in the number also in his 6th against the Jews For since Peter and the rest of the Apostles had received a Power of preaching through the whole World so that to all and every one of them indefinitely the Sheep throughout the whole World were committed they may be called Pastors of the whole World. So Chrysostom does not scruple to call Timothy Bishop of the whole World and Paul often especially in his second Homily of the Praises of St. Paul. Therefore the Sheep of the whole World may be said to be committed to Peter because he received the Sheep not of any one certain Kingdom or place to be governed by him but indefinitely the Sheep of the whole World to which he should come †Nec refert quod nonnulli aiunt Petro totius mundi oves esse commissas S. Leo Serm. 3. de Assumptione Gregor lib. 4. Epist 32. Theophylact. in cap. ult Johan ante hos Chrysostomus Homil. 87. in Joan. 80. in Pop. Antioch Cum enim Petrus reliqui Apostoli per totum orbem praedicandi potestatem accepissent c. Du Pin dissert 4. c. 1. p. 311. Yea this is no more than what is granted by Bellarmine ‖ De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 11. l. 2. c. 12. And the Discussor * Part. 3. p. 179 198. who tells us again and again that all the Apostles were Heads Rectors and Pastors of the universal Church and that the whole World was their Diocess Having seen that the Testimontes cited by the Discussor are of no force I would now have proceeded to shew that the Ancients were so far from taking these Words to contain any Power peculiar to St. Peter that they thought not only that the other Apostles but all Christian Bishops were as much concern'd in them as he was that the Duty inculcated by them was equally incumbent upon them all and that they are by them equally apply'd to all without making a Difference or reserving any Prerogative for St. Peter This I say I would now have proceeded to had I not found the Work already done not only by Protestants but many learned Men of the Church of Rome particularly by Vigorius †Ad Respons Synodal Concil Basil Comment c. 13. Launoy ‖ Epist ad Raimund Formentin par 2. ad Hadrian Vallant parte quinta ad Carol. Magistrum and Du Pin * De Antiq. Eccles Disciplina dissert 4. c. 1. p. 310. Whom one would think the Discussor should take himself concerned to answer before he again tries his Skill upon Protestants He next proceeds to several nice Distinctions as he calls them made by the Protestant Divine whose Papers he answers as that Christ said Oves meas not tuas That he said pasce Oves not Pastores That it was not said confirma Filios or Servos or Subditos but Fratres Now though there be good reason and ground for these Distinctions yet because there is no need of them in order to the answering of any thing offer'd by the Discussor I shall not insist upon them He now hastens to conclude but before he comes to it he thinks fit to shew the Protestant Divine how fair an Antagonist he has of him To that end he thus bespeaks him If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep I will exempt them from Peter 's Prefecture †Pag. 199 200. He need not prove this to procure their Exemption unless the Discussor first prove that every Indefinite is equivalent to a Vniversal But he says If they were his Sheep they were under the Denomination of Oves meas recommended to Peter 's Shepherdly Government If so then Peter himself was under that denomination recommended to his own Shepherdly Government for he was no less Christ's Sheep than the other Apostles But Christ often calls them Sheep and this enforces him to believe that he meant them When Christ calls them so he calls Peter so too and this will then enforce him to believe that he meant Peter as much as the rest But the Truth is by Oves meas he meant neither him nor the other Apostles who as they are Apostles are never reckoned as Sheep but as Shepherds and therefore not to be fed themselves by any but all of them to feed others Now that I may not be behind-hand with him in Kindness but may shew my self as fair an Antagonist as he is I will make him the like offer by which he will perceive how concluding his Argument is If he can prove that Peter is none of Christ's Sheep I will then exempt him from being under his own Prefecture Again If he can prove that Peter is no Creature I will exempt him from the Prefecture of the Apostles This Argument to speak in the Words of a learned Divine of our own Church ‖ Conference between Rainolds and Hart. c. 3. p. 90. over-masters the Discussor's because Christ said not to Peter feed ALL my Sheep But he said to the Apostles preach the Gospel to EVERY Creature He will not yet
‖ Supplement de Scriptor p. 100. But it matters not whether since what he says is nothing to our present purpose For suppose none of the Apostles but Peter had the title of Pastor from our Saviour will this give him any preeminence if they all had the Office and Authority signified by this Title The truth is the Title it self is no where given by our Saviour to Peter he commands him indeed to feed his Flock but if this be to give him the Title of Pastor the same Title is given not only by St. Paul * Acts 20. 28. but by St. Peter too †1 Pet. 5. 3. to every Bishop And what will the Pope get by this 2. As none of them say the whole Flock so those of them which say the Flock was commended to him meant no more to include the other Apostles than they did Peter himself they taking them all for Shepherds as much as they did him Though this hath been sufficiently clear'd already in that they thought there was nothing contained in those Words feed my Sheep that was peculiar to St. Peter but what was applicable in common not only to all the Apostles but to all Bishops that succeeded them yet I shall plainly prove it from the Context of two of those very places which the Discussor hath alledged for the Proof of the contrary viz. the one that of St. Ambrose the other that of St. Basil 1. Within less than three lines after those Words produced from St. Ambrose for Peter's Pastorship over the Apostles follow those words I have put in the margin ‖ Beatus ille servus qui potest dicere lac vobis potum dedi non escam nondum enim poteratis Novit enim quos quemadmodum pascat Quis nostrum hoc facere potest Quis nostrum potest vere dicere factus sum infirmis infirmus ut infirmos lucrifaciam Et tamen ille tantus ad curam gregis electus a Christo qui sanaret infirmos curaret invalidos Haereticum a commisso sibi ovili post unam correptionem repellit ne unius erraticae ovis scabies serpenti ulcere totum gregrem contaminet Proaem ad 5. l. de fide Edit Paris an 1614. in which he says of St. Paul all the same things he had before said of St Peter As 1. That he was also that blessed Servant 2. That he was chosen by Christ to take care of the Flock 3. That the Sheepfold not part of the Sheepfold was committed to him Let the Discussor read the whole passage and then tell me whether it be more clear from the Words relating to Peter that Paul was infolded in the Flock intrusted to him than it is from the Words concerning Paul that Peter was infolded in the Flock committed to his care yea whether the Advantage doth not lie rather on Paul's side For in saying he rejects an Heretick lest the Scab of one wandering Sheep should infect the WHOLE FLOCK he seems to imply that St. Paul had the whole Flock under his care which is more than he says of S. Peter But if the Flock must still comprehend the Apostles it unavoidably follows that the Apostles were committed to Paul's shepherdly Government and to Peter's too and Peter governed Paul and Paul governed Peter and they were both of them at once both Subject and Sovereign 2. St. Basil after the Words cited by the Discussor viz. That Christ constituted Peter Shepherd after himself adds giving an equal Power afterward to all Pastors and Teachers * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constitut Monast c. 22. And if to all Pastors and Teachers then certainly to the Apostles who were the prime Pastors and Teachers and if all the Apostles had equal Power with Peter then Peter had no Power over them and by consequence they were not under his Shepherdly Government What follows next is a high Encomium of St. Peter from whose personal Excellencies I have no Inclination to detract though I see no reason to advance him to the debasing of all the rest Let him be if he please the most resplendent amongst the Apostles the most refulgent of the holy Dozen yet to say that therefore he was culled out of that illustrious Society by the discerning Eye of Christ as the fittest Person among them to be his Vicar as if he made him alone his Vicar betrays such unacquaintance not only with the holy Scriptures but with the Writings of the Ancients as one would not expect from so great a Pretender to Antiquity Christ made all the Apostles his Vicars when he gave them that Commission John 20. 21 22 23. And St. Paul reckoned himself and the other Apostles his Vicars when he said We are Ambassadors for Christ We beseech you in CHRIST'S STEAD †2 Corinth 5. 20. And that this Title was anciently given to all Bishops Mons Launoy hath amply proved by the Testimonies of Fathers Councils School-men and other learned Divines of the Church of Rome Yea that the Bishops of Rome were so far from taking it to be their peculiar that scarce any one of them till a thousand Years or more after Christ called himself by this name but was content with the more humble Title of the Vicar of Saint Peter ‖ Launoy Epp. parte 3. Ep. Michaeli Marollio He says Jerom observes on Mark 16. that the whole Flock was recommended to Peter ut sit una Fides sub uno Pastore Bellarmine Labbe and Sixtus Senensis will acquaint him that the Comment on the Gospel of Saint Mark that passes under Saint Jerom's name is none of his * Bell. de Script Eccl. p. 137. Edit Lugd. 1675. Labb Dissert Hist de Script Eccl. tom 1. p. 440. Sixt. Senens Bibl. S. l. 4. p. 247. But having consulted three Editions of St. Jerom I can find no such words nor any like them in the Comment upon that Chapter Chrysostom he tells us affirms that our Saviour was pleased at his departure out of this World to entrust the care of his Sheep to Peter as a faithful and vigilant Guardian and not only to him but to his SUCCESSORS AFTER HIM But by his Successors he cannot mean the Bishops of Rome only for as he says nothing of them in the words before or after so he includes himself in the number of these Successors though he was yet no Bishop but a Priest only And if the reason why Christ intrusted his Sheep to Peter was because he found him a faithful and vigilant Guardian as he had the same reason to intrust them to the other Apostles so for the contrary reason few Popes have been found for a thousand years to whom he would have intrusted them I have now examined the Texts of Holy Scripture and the Greek and Latin Fathers alledged by the Discussor for the proof of St. Peter's Supremacy And upon a review of the whole I think every unbiass'd Reader will conclude with me 1. That his Proofs from