His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow that was Carnal then he call'd for innocent Blood that was Tyrannical his other call was for Church-Goods and Lands that was a Sacrilegious call he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion neither alter'd he any thing of it but to gratifie his Lust and Covetousness Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit praeterquam libidinis luxuriae causâ as Sanders affirms of him And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholick Religion excepting the Title of Head of the Church Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth he had most reason to call for it being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresie contrary to his Fathers Will by the Sacrilegious Protector who did call indeed but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverish'd Church he likewise call'd for false Teachers to dilate the Gangren Martin Bucer a Dominican Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular Ochinus a Capuchin Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati from such we were not like to have Truth who not only fell from the Catholick Church but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency for which by the then establish'd Law they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth she being a Woman and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs and to tamper in Articles of Faith neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes who found the Schism begun and Religion alter'd to their Hands I know very well that in this case Truth is the Pretext but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary This is the usual Mask to hide the ugly Face of a foul Action which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there must be a plausible glittering Title a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprize but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examin'd we shall find that Revenge Haughtiness impure Flames and desire of Plunder were the Springs that mov'd the first Machin and nothing at all of Truth I do not find that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book he writ in defence of the Roman Church he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism and fell out with the Church rather for its Booty and Prey than for its Doctrine and this was Tyndals Sense of it in his Letter to Frith where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy saith thus Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken little for the Clergies profit in time to come but you must understand that it is not out of pure Heart and for love of Truth but to avenge himself and to eat the Whores Flesh and drink the Marrow of her Bones which because 't is somewhat enigmatically express'd Fox is pleas'd in the Margent thus to expound eating the Whores Flesh is to spoyl the Popes Church only for the Prey and Spoyl thereof not Religion Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein As for the suppression of Monasteries says he we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it Having premis'd thus much I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism even according to your own Distinction and Division of it You say she is not guilty of that Crime because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles Then because she pays Reverence to the Antient Fathers of the Church Thirdly Because she owns the first four General Councils c. This you think enough to clear her of Schism whereas 't is nothing at all to the purpose being a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides the Cushion you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastick Governours so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it You are accus'd by Catholicks of a voluntary departure out of the Catholick Church of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted renouncing his Authority look'd on as of Divine Institution this being your Accusation the Reasons alledg'd for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose Now tho' you come off with a scratch'd Face concerning your Paternal I must needs say you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended you extending your kindness to Lutheran Calvenist or Hugonot and indeed to any Church that will but joyn with you in separating from and defaming the Catholick The next thing I have to do is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism and the Method you take herein I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it For instead of proving Rome separating it self from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion which is properly Schism you accuse her of false Doctrine which Accusation could you be able to make good it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars by which you would prove your self not guilty of Schism The first is because you own and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoyns you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnick or how you can fancy to be united to him when you fall off from his Mystical Body the Church of which he is the Head I know not or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles when they recommend Tradition and you reject it when they tell you that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth and you make her Apostatical I could instance in many particulars how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to but I shall wave them and only tell you that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church yet this is your practice when you dispute with Catholicks but when you have to do with Sectaries who plead Scripture against you then you have recourse to Fathers and Tradition using the same Arguments against them as we do against you It was long ago observ'd by the Fathers That Hereticks were great pretenders to the Scriptures backing their false Opinions with it Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque
where your Authors define how many they be but leave them uncertain for their own advantage As to the other branch of the Assertion That your Church is a sound part of the Catholick Church I must beg your Assistance herein to inform me how a particular Church that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholick as yours did and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it can yet continue to be a sound Member of it this I desire you to clear up to me You must not shuffle with me herein and tell me ye did not fall off from it but from its Errors that 's ridiculous Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholick but only from the Roman Church that is false for ye then broke Communion from all Visible Orthodox Churches both in the West and East According to my Authors such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholick Church than a dead Bough may be term'd part of that Tree from which 't is separated by Excision The Church is but one and cannot be divided Scindi unitas non potest nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere spirare non potest substantiam salutis amittit Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin Epist 48. ad Madurenses Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis c. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses schismata nominamus But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholick Church and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's then they make their false Musters and spread their wide Lap to several Sects only to acquire a more considerable multitude which when compar'd with one another are indeed found to be so many several Churches distinguish'd not only by Nation and Climate but by Doctrine and Points of Faith Now tho' these be opposite Parties of different Principles yet to enlarge their bounds and to boast of their greatness they rake all those together under the Title of Protestants who have revolted from Rome counting them on their side as if the definition of a Protestant were One that had apostatis'd from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it And I find some Protestants to specify as much as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis a Protestant is he who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hath renounc'd the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome And Musculus in locis tit de coenâ I embrace all for Brethren in the Lord however they disagree from or amongst themselves as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church consisting of all condemn'd Sects jarring with one another as Eutychians Nestorians Monothelits Sacramentarians Lutherans Calvenists Hugonots Anabaptists with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say That the Church hath the property of Heat Congregare Homogenea things of the same kind Disgregare Heterogenea separate things of a different nature casting out of her Communion all sorts of Hereticks but your Church he says hath the property of cold Congregare Heterogenea enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions rather freezing than uniting them together and accordingly I find Bishop Vsher in a Sermon of his preach'd at Wansted before King James to adopt and matriculate into his Church Greeks Abyssines Aegyptians Jacobites tho' at variance with one another and more at odds with him and tainted with Heresies expresly condemn'd by General Councils For the Aegyptians Aethiopians and Abyssines were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon as infected with Eutychianism holding but one Will Nature and Operation in Christ much of the same Kidney are the Armenians Jacobites Georgians and Copthites The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ The Grecians Muscovites and Russians according to Athanasius's Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory This says he discovereth all of them to be Impious Erroneous from the way of Truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecians Russians and Muscovites maintain It was a saying of King James the First That they erring about the Holy Ghost had lost it As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists I find them formerly condemn'd in Donatus Aerius Vigilantius Xenias Nevatus c. But now after all this I find that neither Schism nor Heresie according to the Sense of your Party hinders one from being a Member of the Church Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church thinks when he says That the departure of Schismaticks is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God and Luther Serm. de Dominic says That they are frantick who go about to separate the Church from Hereticks This their favourable Opinion of Hereticks and Schismaticks made me imagine they themselves were guilty of both and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church lest by that Action they should bar out themselves but how a Schismatick who go's out of the Church or how a Heretick who depraves its Doctrine who has made shipwrack of his Faith and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid can be a Member of the Church I cannot conjecture so I shall keep steddy to St. Hieroms saying contra Lucif Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi Neither can I imagin how Churches opposite one to another disagreeing in weighty points so as not to join in Communion can be said to be Members of the same Catholick Church which is but one Body and has but one Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Name Church is no Name of Separation but of Vnion and Symphony says Chrysost 1 Homil Corinth And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists who came much nearer to Catholicks than you do If our Communion be the Church of Christ yours is not Christs Church for that is but one whichsoever it be In his first Book against them And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle If the Church were on Novatus his side it was not with Cornelius So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together obeying their Supreme Pastor outwardly professing the same Faith Communicating with the rest of the Members in Publick Worship and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists tells them Nobiscum estis you are with us in
was not pronounc'd Blessed And likewise by St. Chrysost in his 17th Hom. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Son of God is not King of Israel but of all the World Now tho' the words that Nathaniel spake do resemble Peters as St Austin in his 6th Tract of St. John observes Talem vocem protulit Nathaniel qualem Petrus yet Chrysost conceives the Sense of them to be very foreign and remote from St. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Nathaniel spake the same words but not with the same meaning for Peter confessed him the Son of God as truly God but Nathaniel as a meer naked Man These things being duly weigh'd in just Scales your Argument that Nathaniel knew our Saviours Divinity because he call'd him Filius Dei seems to me very feeble and invalid that Title being given usually to Persons eminent for Sanctity who are no Natural but Adopted Sons of God Sons by Election not Generation as Rom. 8. Quicunque Spiritu Dei aguntur ii sunt filii Dei And John 1. Dedit eis potestatem Filios Dei fieri And in Gen. 6. Seths Sons are called Filii Dei not by Nature but for their Temeperance Justice and Sanctity by which Divine Imbellishments Humanity approximates to Divinity and may be said to be ally'd to it It remains then to assert that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles that knew the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour he attaining to the knowledge of this most lofty Truth not by the dusky twilight of the shady Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not making use of penetrating subtilty or persuaded thereto by Humane Reasonings but having his Vnderstanding enlightned by God the Father Or as Origen has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a light beaming from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God himself says Athanasius in his 4th Orat. cont Arrianos Patris ipsius enuntiatione filium Dei Christum ipsum esse agnovit as Just in affirms in Tryph. Haec fides paternae revelationis est munus says Hil. 6. Trinit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Petrum Eliam Peter who confessed the Truth by a Divine Revelation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Eccles hier Illuminated by the Divine Revelation of the most Sacro-sanct Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor Peter was assisted by God in laying a sure Foundation of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Dial 4. de Trinit God the Father from above manifestly discovering his proper Son Thus having so glorious and able a Tutor who together with his Divine Doctrin could bequeath a Capacious Suscipient Apprehension he first knew that the Word was made Flesh the Mystery of the Trinity and the Distinction of the Persons He then knew him as the splendor of Gods Glory and Figure of his Substance Heb. 10. He knew him as one in whom the plenitude of the Deity inhabited Corporally Col. 2. He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as one sitting on the same Throne with God as of the same Glory Nature and Substance as of the same Power Glory and Soveraignty He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the proper Son of God the only Son having no other Brother He knew him as Origen has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As that select Son he by way of emimence THE SON He knew him to be the Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Properly not Catachrestically Naturally not by Adoption He knew him not as one advanc'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a Servant to an Adopted Son but as a Son begot from Eternity by an inscrutable incomprehensible Generation as may be gathered out of the Greek Fathers to whom I shall adjoin some of the Latins that you may see how accordantly they conspire in this Point St. Ambrose Lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto accosts our Savior in this manner Vnum te esse cum Patre dixisti quia hoc credidit Petrus Claves regni Coelorum accepit And again speaking of Peter's Confession he acknowledges it to include Non adoptionis nomen sed naturae proprietatem non creationis in eo ignobilitatem sed nativitatis gloriam And St. Austin in his Serm. 144. de Temp. says That Peter did not look on Christ as unus ex Prophetis sed ut filius adimpletor Prophetarum Creator Angelorum And in his 26. Tract on John Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi non sicut aliquis magnus justus sed sicut unicus sicut aequalis He then knew him as Filius Altissimi Luke 1. as Filius unigenitus John 3. as Filius proprius Rom. 8. as Filius verus John 1. 5. This his Confession St. Austin calls Vera plena Confessio Chrysost calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A compleat Confession and it could not but be so since it was not Peters conjectural Apprehension but the Fathers Doctrin and Suggestion This Confession Christ commends partly from its Effect Being Beatitude partly A causa procreante which was the Father this he amplifies Antithesi causae disparatae judicii vel virium naturalium to shew that all the Forces of Mans Wit all Human Wisdom Industry and Sagacity could never have arriv'd to it without a Revelation This Christ approves of not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Human Opinion but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Divine Decree this according to Chrysost he illustrates and explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As you are are the Son of Jonas of the same substance so am I consubstantial with my Father This Confession he strictly charges them to conceal as being too sublime to be divulg'd whereas Nathaniel had liberty to publish his This Confession our Saviour not only own'd but accepted of Peters person which Theophyl says Was a sign that all other Mens Opinions of him were false 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly our Saviour was pleas'd highly to reward Peter for the Merits of this Confession and this is the concurrent suffrage of all the Fathers I shall here insert the Sayings of some of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil advers Eunomium Lib 2. Peter who for the acknowledging the Truth was honoured with the Beatitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Ancorate Peter says thou art the Son of the Living God and Christ presently declares him Blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Therefore he is pronounc'd blessed and entrusted with the Church St. Hierom says on Matt. 16. Testimonio de se Apostoli reddit vicem dixerat Petrus tu es Christus filius Dei vivi mercedem recepit vera confessio Beatus es Simon Bar-jona c. St Austin Serm. 13. in Matt. Deinde addidit ego dico tibi c. Tanquam diceret quia tu dixisti mihi Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi ego dico tibi quod c. Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignum plane confessio Petri praemiùm consecuta est I shall add no more Testimonies to strengthen this Point but
pro omnibus unus pro multis unitas pro universis Domine ad quem ibimus Repellis nos a te da nobis alterum te Peter likewise spake for them all when he said Ecce nos reliquimus omnia secuti sumus te Hence Christ answers to them all in the Plural Number Dico vobis quod vos qui secuti estis me c. And likewise when in John 6. 69 he says We belive and know that thou art Christ the Son of the Living God Here he undertook by answering for the Rest to give an account of their Faith but he committed a great mistake therein for Christ told him that that was not the belief of all of them one of them being a Devil When they were all accused as warm'd with new Wine Peter makes an Apologetical Harangue in the defence and name of them all By these Passages 't is obvious and transparent that Peter herein was the Representative of the Apostolick Society venting in these his Responsals their joint and united Opinions so I shall supersede a further pursuit herein and make it my present business to inform my self in what Sense some of the Fathers entitle him Os Apostolorum whereas indeed they had as much liberty and freedom of speaking to our Saviour as he had The most Radiant and Plausible Opinion amongst them for their dubbing him their Speaker was because they look'd on him as their Prince and thus it may not improperly be said in a subordinate Sense that what was spoken by the chief of the Society was said by the whole Company he representing them all as their Head and Prince and in this Sense it is that Cyril acknowledges Peter to have answered for the Rest as is apparent in several places of his Comments on St. John Princeps Caputque caeterorum primus exclamat Tu es Christus c. Per unum qui praeerat omnes respondent Per Principem consortii haud dubitant exclamare Tu es Christus c. And accordingly 't is very familiar with Chrysost after he has styl'd him The Mouth of the Apostles to join another word with it which denotes him to be chief as in his 55th Hom. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again on the 87th Hom. on St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was the Prince of the Apostles and Mouth of the Disciples the Supreme top of the Society 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Prince of the Apostolick Quire the Mouth of the Disciples De occursu Domini Thus St. Hierom who acknowledges that Peter did profess this Truth ex persona omnium acknowledges him to be their Head St. Cyprian in his 55th Epistle declares that Peter answered for all of them but confesses he did this as the Representative of the Church Vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce Respondens St. Austin fancies he only answered to preserve Unity Vnus pro multis dedit responsum unitas in multis And in his 118 Tract de Temp. Ideo unus pro omnibus quià unitas in omnibus But in Serm. 13. Evang Matt. He gives Three chief Reasons why Peter is said to be their Speaker First Because he is the Type of the only Church Then because he was the Prince or Chief of the Apostles Lastly Because he was most ardent in his Affection towards Christ Petrus unicae Ecclesiae Typus ipse in ordine Apostolorum primus in Christi amore promtissimus saepe unus respondit pro multis 'T is customary with St. Austin to affirm that Peter represents sometimes the Church sometimes the Apostles the Church he represents as its Head and Rector the Apostles as their Primate as will hereafter be made out and in this Sense he is called their Speaker not as if he were their Atturney or Praeco but their Princeps CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christs Divinity as soon as St. Peter Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John c. And concerning the Devils knowledge of Christ THe next thing I am oblig'd to Discuss is Whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as St. Peter had when Christ propos'd this Question to them Vos autem quem me dicitis esse So that Peter herein may be said to have spoke but their Sense and that they knew and could have answered the Question as well as he This is in short what you affirm and what is attested by Modern Protestant Writers Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter says thus of him Do's he confess Christ the Son of God Besides that herein he speaks but the Sense of all the Rest this was no more than what others said as well as he Nathaniel expresly told him Thou art the Son of God This is likewise Dr. Barrow's Sense of it only he delivers it more Sportively and Comically in his Treatise of the Supremacy p. 43. But who say ye that I am up starteth Peter he skippeth forth and preventeth the other Apostles not ignorant of the Point they took Jesus for the Messias which according to the common notion of the Jews did imply his being the Son of God they had the same Faith he from a special alacrity of Spirit and expedition in utterance more forward in declaring it This Opinion seem'd to me very thin and silly That Christ should propound a Question to a Dozen Persons which he knew any of them could solve and make honorable Promises only to him that should speak first seem'd to me a childish fancy and beneath the Conceptions of a Doctor this being not to reward an Excellency of Faith but the promptitude of a nimble Tongue which has nothing of Merit in it Having now mentioned the two above cited Doctors I shall add something more to their Quotations Peter is said to answer for the Rest not as if he spake or knew their Opinion on this Point for the Question was ask'd by our Savior on a sudden and it do's no where appear that the Apostles had any Praecedaneous Conference or Consultation about it but because his Answer thereto was Orthodox they were oblig'd to own and embrace it as the Common Belief of the Church And I conceive that upon our Saviors asking the Question the rest being silent and suspending their Answer Peter first spake not their Common but his Particular Sentiment Suam fidem pro se professus est says Jansenius Pro se solo respondit says Abulensis and this he did as one made more knowing than the Rest being instructed in this Mystery by a particular Revelation from the Father He then being more fervid than the Rest inflam'd by this illumination from God and instigated thereto by a Divine impulse hastned with all speed to describe the Son as the Father had instructed him lest any of the Twelve should speak any thing beneath and unworthy of Christ and so be rebuked by him as they often were This is what St. Chrysost means when he says Peter
in general it may of Wood Wooll-sacks Straw Hay or any such evanid Matter and accordingly the Sees of the other Apostles have been detriumph'd stooping to the Insulting Conqueror and yielding to the pollutions of undermining Heresie but Peter signifies such a Foundation as is fix'd on an inexpugnable Rock So our Savior may here be said to imitate that wise Architect he himself speaks of in building his Spiritual edifice on a Rock and on such an one as is not only able to repel the foaming Surges of the aspiring Sea but can walk on the back of its towring Waves Solidam carnem super liquentis elementi terga suspendens A Rock immoveable planted with an eternal Root A Rock able to evacuate all the Plots of Hells Divan and naufragate all the lurid designs of empoisoned Hereticks I shall next produce the Sayings of some Fathers to prove the Church more eminently built on Peter than on any of the other Apostles The first shall be St. Hierom who on Isaias 2. having compar'd them to Mountains says Super unum montium Christus fundat Ecclesiam loquitur ad eum dicens Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. But that which must needs confound all the Enemies to St. Peter and his Successors but such as have their Face cas'd in Tripple Brass is that besides his owning him to be the Rock he calls his Cathedra at Rome likewise so in his Epistle to Damasus Ego beatitudini tuae id est says he Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam esse Ecclesiam scio This Saying of this great Father left a deep incision in my Mind and being willing to find out a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal it I repair'd to Dr. Whitaker who thus inform'd me Cathedra Petri non successionem Pontificum sed Petri fidem significat This appear'd to me to be a meer shuffle for I knew that that Father did in his 57th Epist to Damasus acknowledge him to possess both fidem sedem Petri From this Doctor I went to Dr. Stillingfleet expecting in his Rational Account to find something that might be proportionate to that Title but I found my self likewise there defeated of my desir'd satisfaction His words were these This Testimony seems big and high at first and I shall not impute these expressions either to St. Hierom 's heat or flattery altho' it looks the more suspitious because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops and that those words are contain'd in a complemental address to Damasus because looked on as a Roman Christened in that Church he addresses himself to Damasus Here the Doctor pretending not to ascribe these words either to St. Hierom's heat or flattery doth obliquely perstringe him as guilty of both As for the pique which he says Hierom had with the Eastern Bishops I question whether the Doctor can prove he had any more disgust against them than what might arise from their Errors and Schism so he seeing their Contentions and Divisions thought it the safest way to break off Communion with them and apply himself to St. Peters See Their Schism he declares in these words in the abovementioned Epistle Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus indiscissam Domini Tunicam desuper textam minutatim per frusta discerpit After this he discovers the true Doctrin of the Western and the Errors of the Oriental Church the former he affirms to have preserv'd incorruptam Patrum haereditatem and that they did return Dominici seminis puritatem centeno fructu but that in the latter the good Seed did degenerate in Lolium avenasque Then he says In occidente Sol Justitiae in oriente Lucifer vos aurea vasa hic lignea testacea These are high Encomiums of the Roman Church but now after all this the main reason that oblig'd him to associate himself in Communion with Damasus was because he as Heir to St. Peter sat in his Cathedra on which he acknowledg'd the Church to be built as St. Austin did confess the Succession of Bishops from Peter to be the invincible Rock so here is neither flattery nor complement as the Doctor would fain shift it off with it being very irrational to imagin that that Great Father would make use of either in matters of Faith which concern'd his Souls Salvation And if the Doctor has a faculty to deprave such a plain place as this is no passage in the Fathers will be able to resist the cunning of such contortions My next proof is out of St. Cyprian Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata and accordingly speaking of Peters See he says Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta ost My Third Proof is out of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see that amongst all the Disciples of Christ who were sublime and worthy to be elected this Man Peter is called the Rock and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church St. Basil in his 6th Book against Eunomius gives the reason why the Church was superstructed on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built upon him I might in reason imagine that what I have already wrote should be a sufficient Collyrium to open your ciel'd Eyes and fetch off those Scales which have obstructed your visive faculty that you might now discernibly see the inanity of your effoete and barren endeavors in assaying to purloin from St. Peter that inherent and inseparable Honor of being the Rock of the Church I do not see any thing to the contrary but that your Objections are solv'd and that in no evasive manner Having perform'd thus much I was preparing to advance forward when I found my self on a suddain oblig'd to make a short halt upon my discovering a small Quotation of yours out of Origen Petra est quisquis Christi Discipulus But pray do you not think that you have sufficiently sully'd your self with guilt by endeavouring to disrobe St. Peter of his Illustrious Dignities without committing Sacriledge on the whole Apostolick Colledge by robbing them likewise of the Title of Foundations of the Church and by cantonizing it out to every Christian Must Peter be dismounted and the rest of the Twelve by a levelling principle have equal shares and after all this must every Christian Scholar come in for a joint Dividend Had I not a Clue more unerring than that of Ariadne I could not possibly disinlabyrinth my self from these sinuous windings First Christ is the Rock then Faith and Confession then all the Apostles but now every Christian and who not so Peter the right Heir be by a Bill of Exclusion shut out Amongst your choice of Interpretations on this Text summon'd on purpose to stave off Truth I was very