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
nomen Petri ut Petra derivatum a Christo non tamen derivatum nominis Christi The next thing I shall say concerning St. Austin's Exposition is That as in his Retract he do's not condemn the Opinion of the Churches being built on Peter so in other places he asserts it as in festo Cathedrae Sancti Petri Petrum fundamentum Ecclesiae Dominus nominavit ideo dignè fundamentum hoc Ecclesia colit supra quod Ecclesiastici aedificii altitudo consurgit Et de Jejuniis Priscorum Petrus Apostolorum caput Caeli Janitor Ecclesiae fundamentum And Serm. 124. de Temp. Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae in ipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem in ipsa confessionis Christi crepidine in ipso immobilis fidei fundamento in Petro scilicet I shall add no more of this import for I hasten to conclude this Point and shall only inform you That St. Austin did not refer it to the election of the Reader to believe or disbelieve Peter and his Successors to be Heads of the Church but whether or no their Power was signified by these words Super hanc Petram c. For in most perspicuous terms he acknowledges in several places of his Writings Peters Supremacy and declares them wretched and Hereticks that disown him to be the Rock Thus Agon Christ he calls them Miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt Et contra 5 Haeres he says Neque Haeretici intelligunt in Petro Petram datas illi claves Here in plain terms he calls you and such as you are Hereticks But that which must gag you and make you as silenc'd a Minister as if the Wolves had first seen you is That he makes the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to be the Rock Contra partem Donati Numerate Episcopus ab ipsa sede Beati Petri ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae Having thus fully satiated my curiosity concerning St. Austin's Opinion on this point I shall now advance to encounter your following Arguments CHAP. V. Concerning St. Peters Faith or Confession being the Rock And how those Fathers who Interpret that to be the Rock exclude not his Person THe next stratagem to thrust out St. Peters Person is your making his Faith or Confession to be the Rock and not his Person and now I am to enter into a large Field of Matter where I may justly expect to meet with varieties of Intricacies which will appear insuperable and I am sensible that I shall find it a very difficult task to evolve my self out of them but having embarqu'd in this troubleosme Matter I shall not now dastardly recede but the more vigorous opposition I meet with contra audentior ibo Those Fathers that assert Faith to be the Rock take it not a part from Peters Person but as inherent in him they take his Faith as conjoin'd with his Person or else his Person confessing the Faith so when they call Faith the Rock they take not these words simply and absolutely secundum se but respectively with a personal relation to Peter they either take Faith cum aggregato Petri or else they take Peter cum adjuncto fidei so their Sense of the thing is plainly this upon thee confessing me will I build my Church So neither his Person alone nor his Faith alone but both conjoin'd make up this Rock Peter without Faith had been unqualified for such an Office and Faith taken separate had been incongruous For the Foundation and the rest of the Building ought to be Congenial The Church is a Congregation of Men as of Living Stones so the Rock which is the Foundation of the Church ought to be a Man strengthened and supported by Divine Assistance Fundamentum debet cohaerere cum aedificio sicut caput cum membris si fundamentum est ipsa fides cum sit res mere spiritualis non conveniret cum Ecclesiâ quae ex hominibus corpore sensa ratione constantibus conflatur So I conclude that as Peter is not the Foundation without Faith so neither Faith taken solitarily or residing in any other Subject than in him but his Faith in and with his Person as St. Chrysost elegantly phrases it on Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 firm as a Rock in Faith or Immobili inconcussâ firmitate solidato in fide It was observ'd by Cardinal Perron that the Antient Fathers upon the Arians oppugning the Divinity of our Savior finding no place in the Scripture more fit to manifest Christ to be the connatural Son of God than this most noble Confession of Peter did much exalt its Dignity but with no intention in the least of denying the Church to be built on his Person but look'd on this his Confession to be the causal and his Person to be the formal Foundation of the Church Thus the Fathers sometimes affirming Peters Faith to be the Rock and sometimes himself are not contrary Expositions excluding or extinguishing but including one the other they meaning hereby the Church to be built causally on Peters Confession and formally on his Person his Confession being the Motive which induc'd our Savior to build his Church on his Person This do's approximate very nigh to Maldonat's Sense Commodissima interpretatio mihi videtur si dicamus eos dicere voluisse super fidem confessionem Petri Ecclesiam aedificatam id est super Petrum propter fidem confessionem hujusmodi phrasibus vulgo utimur ut dicamus in unius hominis fide fundatam esse rempublicam i. e. in uno homine propter ipsius fidem So that to affirm the Church to be built on Peters Faith is not to bar and disclude his Person no more than it was St. Hieroms meaning to deny Peters walking on the Sea when he said in his 61 Epist ad Pammach Super aquas non ambulasse corpus sed fidem But to signifie the cause why it was super-edified on him there being no discordancy 'twixt affirming the Church built upon Peters Faith and on Peter confirm'd in Faith Hence Cyril Lib. 4. de Trinit calls this Rock The most unshaken and firm Faith of Peter combining both the causal and formal Foundation together in a friendly League 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall now pursuant to what I have already laid down take a full survey of those Fathers who affirm Peters Faith to be the Rock and see whether they thereby design to exclude his Person The first you quote is Hilarius Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est But that he did not by saying so lock out his Person is evident by his Writings as on Psalm 131. enarrat Petrum cui superius Claves Regni Caelorum dederat super quem aedificaturus erat Ecclesiam c. And Lib. 6. de Trinit B. Petrus aedificationi Ecclesiae subjacet And again O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum And on Psalm 131.
Council thinks fit Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in Templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam but then by disclaiming any Divinity to be in them the Council acquits us of Idolatry in the following words Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit habenda veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa quae illa repraesentant c. Now as to the first part of the Council concerning retaining Images in Churches this was antiently practis'd long before that Council Gregory Nazianzen in his Forty ninth Epistle to Olymp. makes mention of Images in the Church of Diocesarea Basil in his Oration of Barlaam pointeth to his Image which stood in the Church Greg. Nyssen in his Oration of Theod. speaks of a Church so beatified with Images that it shewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some pleasant and flowry Meadows Nicephorus affirms that Pulcheria the Empress built a Church at Constant and placed therein a Picture of our Blessed Lady which Eudocia sent her from Hierusalem Tertull. in his Second Book de Pudicitia witnesseth that the Image of Christ in form of a Shepherd carrying a Sheep on his Shoulders was engraven on the Chalices used in the Church August de consens Evang. witnesseth that in his time Christ was to be seen in many places painted between St. Peter and Paul Eusebius in his Seventh Book of his Ecclesias History makes mention of a Brazen Statue of Christ at Caesarea Philippi thought to be erected by the Haemaroissa cur'd by him this Statue he declares to have continued to his days and that he had seen it Sozomen adds That when Julian the Apostate out of spight against our Saviour caus'd it to be cast down and his own set up in the place that there came miraculously Fire from Heaven which consum'd Julians Christ by this avenging the affront offered his Statue by that Insolent Apostate as much as if it had been done to his Person And the same Author tells us That when Christs Image was thrown down and broken in pieces the Christians gathered up its fragments and laid them up in the Church which certainly was in Honor to the Prototype The other part of the words of the Council is That those Images should have their due Honor and Veneration It cannot be deny'd but that an Image is capable of Honor and of Contempt and it naturally flows that those that hate the Party represented by the Picture will hate the Picture and those that love the Party will respect the Picture Now this respect which Catholicks out of love to the Persons represented by them have for Pictures is very slanderously call'd by you Idolatry whereas that consists in forsaking the true God and Worshipping either real Devils or false Gods so those Idols stood in opposition to the true God as ' t is 1 Kings 18. 21. If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal be God follow him And 't is well known that the Jews as often as they fell to Idolatry always forsook the God of Israel Then the Council gives the Reason why they should be Honour'd Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypum This is exactly what St. Basil affirms de Spiritu Sancto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Honor done to the Image redounds to the Prototype And accordingly Athanasius 4 Serm. con Arrianos says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that worships the Kings Image in that worshippeth the King For Images by imagination stand for the Prototype and what is done by way of Honor to the Image is mentally done to the Person So the Honor address'd them is Relative for they be not honour'd because they be Pictures but because they represent such persons so the respect is determined to the Party represented Abstracted from the Prototype they are not capable of Honor. A Civil Honor is due to the Picture of a King of our Ancestors and nigh Relations and to those we love We resent any ignominy offered them and naturally conceive indignation thereat A Religious Honor is due to the Pictures of Christ his Holy Apostles and Saints the Respect shewn them redounding to the Original and ultimately terminating on it as 't is in the Second Nicene Council Act 7. Vt per hanc Imaginum pictarum inspectionem omnes qui contemplantur ad Prototypi memoriam recordationem desideriumque veniant illisque salutationem honorariam adorationem exhibeant According to Niceph. Xenaias a Persian by Birth a Slave by Fortune one of an Avdacious Spirit and Impudent Mouth was the first that dar'd to affirm That the Image of Christ and of the Saints were not to be reverenc'd Now when the word Worship or Adoration is apply'd it do's really amount to no more than an honorary Respect and Reverence a Relative Inferior Honor We do not take those words in that Sense as the Tribute of Honor due to God as you injuriously asperse us with this we abhor for in that Sense we Adore and Worship only the incomprehensible Deity that Supreme Monarch who has Sovereign Dominion over all renouncing all other Divine Adoration Now as to the word Adoration of which you make great advantage against us with the Communalty you must understand that it do's not always signify Divine or Religious Worship but it has likewise an inferiour Sense importing Reverence Respect either of Body or Mind communicable to Creatures according to their Dignities sometimes any bowing the Body in sign of Reverence as may be proved by many places in Scripture where Creatures are said to be ador'd and so to Deserving Eminent Worshipful Men we may be said to give Worship when we Honor and Respect them by bowing or by any other outward gesture according to the custom of the Countrey Now as to the Act of worship that consists of two Parts the Exterior sign is Kneeling the Interior is the Affection directed to what we Worship and indeed that is the main thing for as to the Exterior that we grant to Persons of several qualities as well as to God as to our King our Bishop and Parents but this is done with different Apprehensions and Affections we worship God as our Creator in a more sublime and eminent manner others in a lower degree This may be gathered out of the Fathers who take the word in different acceptations sometimes in the more principal and losty Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Divine Worship Supreme Honor due to God only as in Epiphanius Heresie 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur And Hierom in his 53 Epist Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoremus yet sometimes they take it in an inferior Sense and say other
things besides God are to be Adored as in August de Civit. Dei Lib. 10. c. 4. Homines si multum eis addatur etiam adorandi and Cyr. Alexand. Hom. de Deipara Crux adoratur toto orbe torrarum Accordingly Lactantius Flecte genu Lignumque Crucis venerabile adora And St. Hierom Epist 17. says Baptistae cineres adorate St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration on Theodosius praises the Empress Helena for setting the Cross upon the Crown of Kings that it might be ador'd in them Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit locavit ut Crux Christi in Regibus adoretur And St. Hierom in Epitaph Paulae reports of her that having at Hierusalem found out the Cross upon which Christ suffered she ador'd it as if she even had seen our Saviour hanging on it St. Chrysost is very clear herein in several places but more especially in his Hom. de Adorat Crucis That the Primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Cross may be prov'd out of Tertullian in his Apology where he acknowledges that the Heathens took notice of it and accus'd them as Crucis Religiosos This double acceptation of the word Adoration was well known to Mr. Thorndike who affirms the words Adoration Worship Respect and Reverence to be equivocal and the cause of this Equivocation to be for want of words to signify those conceptions which flow not from Common Sense and from this Equivocation in those words the greatest part of the difficulties which occur take their rise So you may see how deceitfully you deal by us herein always taking the words Adore Worship as importing Supreme Honor to God and then falsely accusing us of giving Gods Honor to a Creature or Image which we detest with a greater abhorrency than your self The other thing the Council took care in not to leave the least umbrage of suspition of Idolatry to any Rational Man is that they did disown any Virtue or Divinity to be in them that upon that account they should be respected or that they should be requested any thing or any trust reposed in them as the Gentiles did c. and this puts me in mind of what Gregory several hundred Years before the Council wrote in his Seventh Book of his Epistles to Secundinus who it seems had desired Gregory to send him some Pictures which he did and likewise instructs him in the right use of them agreeable to the Council Scio quidem quod Imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis ut quasi Deum colas sed ut ad recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas cujus te imaginem videre desideras nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur sed illum adoremus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed in Throno sedentem recordamur CHAP. IV. Of Transubstantiation THe next Point by which you would prove Rome guilty of Schism is Transubstantiation which you have lewdly abused and injuriously represented but I am afraid you are not so much offended at the word as at the meaning of it As to the word the Church was pleas'd to make use of it as fit and proper to declare the change of the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ Quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat As the Lateran Council says Canone Secundo And accordingly the Council of Trent Quae conversio convenienter proprie à S. Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellatur The Council defines not the word to be of Faith but makes use of it as a fit word expressive of their Sense so that if you can tell me a more proper one than this I shall not quarrel with you about it For names of words speaking in their rigour are not Objects of Faith as Athanasius shews in his Reconciliation of the Verbal Controversie of Person and Hypostasis but the Matter and Sense therein couch'd As to the newness of the word which is often objected tho' it was never in Latin publickly authoriz'd before the Council of Lateran yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be prov'd to be very antient and the thing thereby signify'd seems as old as Christs celebration of his Supper For a Point of Faith may be elder in it self than the Council that defines it The Consubstantiality of the Son and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost must be admitted to be elder than the Council of Nice and Constantinople that defin'd them The Conciliary Definition being generally occasion'd by the emergency of Heretical Opinions contrary to the Sense of the Church which had they not arose the Church had never been necessitated to a more Explicit Declaration Thus it happened here Sundry monstrous Opinions being broach'd about the Blessed Sacrament the Church was oblig'd to intervene with her unerring determinations establishing the Truth and dispelling Error Now tho' this Article was always in it self of the substance of Faith and tho' the thing signify'd by the new term was always held as a Divine Truth yet it was not obliging under that notion till the Solemn Declaration of the Church Quae veritas etsi prius erat de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata as Scotus says Now that the Church has power to coyn a new word for the Elucidating Truth and that she hath made use of this Power is clear by the Council of Nice which to declare Christs Consubstantiality with the Father found out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Council of Ephesus which to express the Mystery of Christs Divine Incarnation made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara That the Fathers long before the Council of Lateran and Trent did believe a Real change after the consecratory words is most evident and accordingly to express their belief of a Real Conversion they make use of Real Changes mention'd in Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent Water into Wine Hence the Greek Fathers call this mutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming after the Consecration the Symbols to be chang'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek words importing Transelementation Transfaction Transmutation Transfiguration Thus St. Ambrose Lib. 4. de fide Per Sacrae Orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur sanguinem and Lib. 4. de Sacramento Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod jam corpus est Christi ipse dixit factum est And again Sermo Christi qui poterit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant And accordingly George Nyssen in orat catechet Recte Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credo transmutari And Cyril Hieros in his Catech. Myst says Panis
Vinum Eucharistiae ante sacram invocationem adorandae Trinitatis Panis erat Vinum merum peractâ invocatione Panis fit corpus Christi Vinum Sanguis Christi And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread is chang'd into the very Body of Christ Now that we might not disbelieve this stupendous change because 't is supernatural he tells us how it is effected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread is chang'd into the Flesh of our Lord by arcane words by the Mystical Bendiction by the accession of the Holy Ghost on John 6. St. Chrysost in his 83 Hom. on Matt. says That this change is not a work of Human Power but Christ himself performs it He Sanctifies and Transmutes it That Christ who as soon as he will'd or spoke a thing by his Omnipotency effected it as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will the Leaper was cleans'd as soon as he said Lazare exi foris he caus'd and enabl'd him to come forth as soon as he Commanded the Devils to dislodge out of the Demoniacks he drave them out as soon as he ordered the Winds to hold their Breath he caus'd a Calm as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he rais'd the Virgin to Life The same Almighty Jesus at his last Supper having taken Bread into his Hands and having said Hoc est Corpus meum did by vertue and energy of those Operative Divine Words incomprehensively ineffably change and transelement it into his Body and the like concerning the Wine This adorable Mystery I shall not in the least question because I cannot comprehend it that is to incur Nicodemus his Error neither will I disbelieve it because 't is above the strength of Nature that was the weakness of Zaoharias but with the Blessed Virgin I will rely on the word of God who neither can deceive nor be deceiv'd Fiat secundum verbum tuum firmly without any diffidence by a generous and vivid Faith acquiescing in the veracity of Christ his words Cum Christus ipse affirmet ac dicat hoc est corpus meum quis deinceps audeat dubitare ac eodem dicente hic est Sanguis meus quis dubitet ac dicat non esse Sanguinem Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum quod est Sanguini propinquum non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutâsset Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus Sangninem sumamus nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus sub specie Vini Sanguis says St. Cyril in his Mystag Catechism Which words are as clear for Transubstantiation as any thing in the Council of Lateran or Trent Now as I do undoubtedly believe that when Christ spake these words they had their effect as soon as they were uttered and for this I have St. Chrysost Authority who affirms That Christ when he said this is my Body made it his Body So with the same Father I do believe when a lawful Priest of the Catholick Church pronounces the same Consecratory words that they have the same effect Sacra ipsa oblatio sive illum Petrus sive Paulus sive cujusvis meriti sacerdos offerat eadem est quam dedit Christus Discipulis quamque sacerdotes modo conficiunt nihil habet ista quam illa minus cur id quia non sanctificant homines sed Christus qui illam antea sacraverat in his 2. Hom. on 2 Epist Timothy I know this Doctrine is much oppos'd by our Adversaries and they fancy that we are sufficiently confuted by having it try'd at the Tribunal of our Senses but this is not at all prevalent with me for Christ never intended that this supernatural change should be subjected to our External Senses for had it been visible to them it could not have been matter of Faith which is properly argumentum rerum non apparentium It is observable that Christ before he wrought this invisible Miracle had done many visible ones to convince his Disciples of his Divine Power they having imbibed that belief could never rationally doubt of his Veracity or Ability in performance of what he had said knowing him to be Omnipotent Ipse Dominus testificatur nobis quod Corpus suum accipiamus sanguinem quid debemus de ejus fide testificatione dubitare says St. Ambrose Christ then willing to exercise their and our Faith in this Mystery and at the same time to free us from eating Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper Species which we naturally abhor was pleas'd to give us them Clothed Apparell'd under another Species of Bread and Wine Quod occulis apparet species sunt visibles panis vini quod sub speciebus iisdem fides nostra non sensus aut ratio comprehendit id verum Christi corpus And accordingly Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore God indulgently condescends to us and preserves the Species of Bread and Wine but transelements them into the strength of his Flesh and Blood There is no question but that the Fathers were Men of Sense and as acute and subtle Persons as any of our Adversaries yet in judging of this Mystery they admitted not their Senses as Umpires Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi absurdum esse videtur quod dicit superat sensum rationem nostram sermo ipsius verba Domini falsa esse nequeunt sensus noster saepe fallitur quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est Corpus meum nulla teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus says St. Chrysostom in his 60 Orat. ad Pop. Antioch and some of them advise us not to judge of this great Mystery either by our tast or by our sight being of an higher nature than to have such an inquest to sit on 't Non est panis etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod a nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse says St. Cyril in his Catech. St. Ambrose raiseth a Question for you but then he solves it Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video sed habet similitudinem ut nullus horror sit cruoris Lib. 4. Sacrament And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But why do's it seem to us not to be Flesh but Bread that we should not loath the eating of it And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems unto us to be Bread but 't is Flesh indeed And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is chang'd by an ineffable energy tho' it seems to us to be Bread Now the high abuse you offer Catholicks in this Point is by representing our belief herein after a Gross Carnal Capharnaical meaning impressing those of your Party with the same false Ideas concerning us as the Heathens conceiv'd against the Primitive Christians as if we were a Barbarous Inhumane sort of Cannibals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a first starting or hopping or skipping as the Doctor paints to himself in his deluded fancy for St. Peter did not merit any thing by speaking first and so preventing them by the glibness of a voluble Tongue but by the eminency of his Faith by his anticipating the rest in the knowledge of that Mystery Hence 't is as Jansenius observes Cum Chrysostomus alii eum vocant Os nomine omnium respondisse non sic accipiendum quasi responderit id quod omnes sentirent sed quia solus responderit quod omnibus respondendum fuisset Now if the other Apostles did equally know it with Peter and he only spake their Sense for them I shall with Maldonat ask this Question Si pro omnibus Petrus loquebatur cur non omnibus dictum beati estis Cur non omnibus mutata nomina Cur non omnibus dictum vobis dabo c. Besides it seems strange to me that the rest should be able to understand this Mystery without a Revelation and that Peter who in other things was more forward and penetrant should here be so dull and unapprehensive as not to discover this without a particular Beam from the Father of Light for had he understood it before the Revelation had been superfluous But herein Dr. Hammond was pleas'd to lend me his charitable Hand by clearing up this doubt to me in these words I must in Charity says he believe that some other of the Twelve acknowledg'd the Divinity of Christ and had it reveal'd to them by the Father This seem'd at first very apposite but when I considered that the Doctor could not possibly prove any Revelation either at or before that time concerning the Divinity of our Savior to any of the Twelve but to Peter I concluded that what the Doctor was pleas'd to call Charity was really Policy So I left him and apply'd my self to St. Hilary as being the abler Man and he acquainted me that the other Apostles were ignorant of it on Matt. 13. Ignorantibus caeteris primus Respondit Tu es c. And Cyril in his 11th Catech. inform'd me That the other Apostles were silent at our Saviours Question because it was above Humane reach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All the Apostles being silent for this Doctrin was above the power of Humane Apprehension Peter the Prince of the Apostles c. And accordingly Hilarius Lib. 6. de Trin. acknowledged it to be Vltra humanae infirmitatis modum This Doctrin as St. Ambrose affirms Lib. 4. Lucae a Human Mind could never comprehend Plenâ rationis investigatione This made the other Apostles to hesitate and fluctuate not knowing what Answer to shape to this sublime Question as Basilius Seleucius observ'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But whom say ye I am He suspended them all in silence and seeing their ignorance he suggested to Peter an Answer from God Now what concerns the other Apostles altho' I grant that they took Christ to be the Shiloh or Messias yet that did not imply to them his being Gods Natural Son Per identitatem substantiae but rather an Imputative or Assumptive Son And this their belief did amount to no more than this Credimus te esse Messiam quem scimus vocari Filium Dei Now altho' they call'd him Filius Dei and thereby seem'd to know his Name they were ignorant of his Nature whereas Peter by vertue of his Revelation knew both Complexus est omnia qui nomen naturam complexus est as Ambrosius says And herein lies the difference 'twixt Peters knowledge and theirs For the true knowledge of the Messias consisted in knowing his Nature as Hilarius observes Gloria Revelationis Naturae scilicet non nominis cum frequentata nominis professio jam fuisset 'T was ordinary and common with them to call an egregious Person Filius Dei Hence the Seamen upon his appeasing the tumultuous Sea called him so 'T is not at all probable that such rude illiterate People should know the Mystery of the Trinity his Consubstantiality with God The Centurian likewise in St. Mark says of him Vere hic homo filius erat Dei which saying is very well explain'd by St. Luke Vere hic homo justus erat this word Filius is ascrib'd to Men as well as Christ as Chrysost affirms in his 4th Hom. de incompreh Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is properly attributed to him improperly to Men and accordingly St. Amb. Lib. 1. de fide Filius aut per adoptionem aut per naturam est per adoptionem nos filii dicimur ille per veritatem naturae est Having plainly evidenc'd the difference 'twixt Peters Sentiments of Christ and that of the other Apostles I shall add this That the Fathers when they incidently say That the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God before Peters promulging him so do mean thereby his Nominal and not his Natural Filiation If they do not mean so they must prove that the others had Revelations of that kind for I will never be induc'd to believe otherwise than that St. Peters Revelation did discover to him more than either what he or they knew before otherwise it had been of no import That which confirms me in this my Opinion concerning the Fathers is because I find St. Ambrose in one place to affirm that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God as well as Peter and in another place to seem to appropriate it wholly to him Lib. 4. Lucae Et si aliis imperatur ut laxent retia sua soli tamen Petro dicitur duc in altum hoc est in profundùm disputationum quid enim tam altum quam altitudinem divitiarum videre scire Dei filium professionem divinae generationis assumere and accordingly he explains duc in altum in his 3d. Book de Virg. duc in altum ad filium altissimi non ducebat in altum quando in stagno piscabatur By these Quotations he plainly ascribes to Peter only the knowledge of the Divine Generation And in his 84th Serm. he makes him to excel in Faith and consequently in his Confession Petrus solus Christum Dei filium confitetur gradus quidem sunt fidei qui devotius credit religiosius confitetur Besides this I find several of the Fathers acknowledging Peter first to know and first to confess Christ his Divinity Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignus judicatus est qui quod in Christo Dei esset primus cognosceret Et in enarrat Psalm 131. he calls him Primum filii Dei confessorem And accordingly St. Cyrill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter first confess'd the Faith St. August Serm. 124. de Temp. Hic est Petrus qui Revelatione Divinâ primus omnium veritatem meruit confiteri dicens Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi And Origen in his Comments on St. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reading of the Scripture makes
Christi periculis by repressing the Hereticks Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrin in this case why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem or to the Primate of Africa The Reason given is because they concluded those Hereticks would with more ease yield to Innocentius as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture Now this Power which they did desire him to shew was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal but his Papal Power for Palestine was no Limb of the Western but Eastern Patriarchate and consequently out of his Jurisdiction as he was the Occidental Patriarch This Power of his which they desire him to make use of they acknowledg'd to be drawn out of the Scripture which cannot be made out but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius who having attributed high things to him proves what he says ex dictis Domini I shall now come to take a view of the words which the Fathers in the Milevitan Council of which Austin was one used to Innocentius which in Epist 92. of St. Austin I find were these Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa perniciosa sentiunt cessuros The words are very plain and clearly discovering their Opinion that his Authority was from Scripture but because this is a truth that must be suppress'd 'T is very pleasant to see how 't is deprav'd by Expositors Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae that is says Chamier Tibi veram doctrinam a Scripturis expromenti But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield by quoting of places out of the Scripture and so confute their Heresies that the African Bishops themselves or any other might have done if they had pleas'd but by vertue of his Supreme Ecclesiastick Authority to which the Fathers imagin'd these Heretick would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture This is the genuin Sense of those words but I shall add no more on this Matter but confine my following Discourse chiefly to St. Peters Supremacy First You must understand that I do believe as firmly as you do that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church the Lapis summus angularis a nullo alio dependens the Lapis fundamentalis cui totum innititur aedificium on whom not only every true Christian but the Apostles and Peter himself is Mystically superedified as St. Austin affirms Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Christ is the Foundation and unmovable Basis of all containing and strengthening all to the end they be well supported for we are all of us built on him Thus you may perceive that we do not go about to despoil our Savior of his due Honor and invest Peter with it as you traduce us with for if he be the Rock of Church much more Christ is to deny which would be Antichristian But Peter is not hereby excluded notwithstanding this but is likewise the Rock but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ And thus St. Basil Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if Peter be a Rock he is not such a Rock as Christ sed sicut Petrus Petra est whereas Christ is really and of himself a Rock unmoveable Petrus autem propter Petram Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial Absolute and Independent Rock the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity whereas Peter is a Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subordinate Vicarious Ministerial by Commission and Derivation from him laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabrick next to himself as Theophyl observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter This thing belongs to you says he as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church Hence you may easily perceive that things Subordinate combate not one with another but suppose one another therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Foundation are no repugnant duelling Propositions but friendly and compatible And thus as it was observ'd by Cardinal Perron Moses saying That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Aegypt to the Promised Land and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel aliud from Christ but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel alterum not alterius generis as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum for as Salmeron well observ'd Respectu Christi non est fundamentum sed aedificatio nec caput sed membrum praecipuum tamen respectu nostri caput fundamentum This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul or else you must grant a Contradiction For as in one place he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation and that no other can be lay'd He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations Now this difference cannot be reconcil'd but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation Hence 't is that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations Fandamentum Christus primum maximum c. Si Sacramenta cogites Christus sanctus sanctorum si gregem subditum cogites Christus pastor pastorum si fabricam cogites Christus fundamentum fundamentorum Thus it seems to be in the Church as in the State For as in the State notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings and Lord of Lords Yet has he establish'd here on Earth Principacies into whose Hands he has committed the Sword whom we are in duty oblig'd to obey so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church and do's rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes yet has he establish'd a Visible Monarchick Government in it with which he invested St. Peter propagating it to his Successors Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter he himself is the main Basis of the Structure and as Christ is the Head of the Church God is the Head of Christ who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholick Church I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock disrobe not St.
Petrum primum Dei confessorem Ecclesiae fundamentum The next you cite is Theophyl Haec confessio quam confessus es fundamentum erit credentium but that he did not except Peters Person is manifest for speaking of Christ rewarding his Confession he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord recompenseth Peter giving him a great reward promising him the Church should be built on him And on Luke 22. he introduces our Savior calling him The next Rock of the Church after himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find you to cite no more Authors on this Subject so I shall take my leave of your Papers for some short time and make an Excursion to other Writers who quote more of the Fathers on this Point This Digression I hope will be pardonable in me whose design in writing is not only for your confutation but for the investigation of Truth and my own satisfaction I find St. Chrysostom to be much contended for and insisted on by your chiefest Champions as a great Assertor that the Church was built on Peter's Faith and not on his Person insomuch that Dr. Whitaker having cited a Saying out of him countenancing this Opinion drolls upon Card. Bellarmine saying Ecquid tibi Jesuita Chrysostomus arrisit But it is withal to be observ'd that altho' in his 55th Hom. on St. Matth. he makes Confession or Faith to be the Rock yet he do's not seclude Peters Person but attributes as great things to it as to his Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ raises Peters thoughts higher making him a Shepherd Here he acknowledges his Pastoral Power then he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He committed into the Hands of a mortal Man the Power of all things in Heaven After this he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God set Jeremy over one Nation but Peter over all the World Here he confesses his universal Jurisdiction As for his saying in his Serm. de Rentecost That Christ did not build his Church upon a Man but upon Faith I conceive he means there upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare naked Man for we grant that Christ did not build his Church simpliciter super personam Petri ut Hominis nudi sed fide solidâ Christum confitentis as on one irradiated by the illapse of a Celestial Beam darted from God the Father as on one strengthned by the Mission and Power of the Holy Ghost as on one for the Indeficiency of whose Faith Christ compos'd a particular Prayer or to use St. Chrysostom's own words to explain his meaning as on one who was rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immoveable unshaken invariable fix'd firm rooted in Faith harden'd and stronger than a Rock in Faith This Explication must be admitted or else you must accuse him of the greatest incogitancies and contradictions imaginable opposing Chrysostom to Chrysostom I shall now insert as many Sayings of his to Broad-seal and Authenticate what I have here asserted as I have observ'd in perusing his Works manifestly to evince that tho' he interpreted Faith to be the Rock yet he did thereby not intend any injury to Peters Person In his Hom. ad eos qui scandalizati sunt He calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church the chief of the Society of the Disciples On the 50th Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Pillar of the Church the Foundation of Faith the Head of the Apostolick Quire Hom. 4 de verbis Isaiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Foundation of the Church the desperate lover of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the chief of the Apostles the Mouth of the Disciples the Pillar of the Church the Firmitude of Faith the Foundation of Confession the Oecomenical Fisherman In his 9th Hom. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I say Petrus I mean a solid Petra an unmoveable Foundation the Great Apostle the chief of the Disciples Hom. Petri Eliae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Peter the top of the Apostles that immoveable Foundation that solid Rock that Prince of the Church In Psalm 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear what he says to Peter the Pillar the Foundation who therefore was called Peter because he was petrified in Faith Hom. in Petrum Paulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hail Peter the Rock of the Faith the Foundation of Orthodoxy De abnegat Petri. he introduces St. Peter apologizing for himself to Christ Did not I first promulge you crying out Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God wherefore you accepting of my Testimony did declare me Blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and didst entitle me the Rock of the Church saying unto me Thou are Peter c. Hom. 28. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter having said Thou art the Son of the Highest God had this Answer Thou art Peter c. Thus Peter said therefore he was made the Foundation of the Church By these Testimonies it evidently appears what great respect and what signal Honor he ascrib'd to Peters Person calling him not only the Pillar and Foundation of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles And if in some part of his Works out of reverence to his noble Confession he affirms the Church to be built on it and in one Sense it may be said so yet he robs not his Person of this Honor but attributes as much to that as to his Confession I may add more for if he affirms his Confession or Faith to be this Foundation advancing that to so high an eminence he exalts his Person to an higher Battlement and Altitude in making him the Foundation of this Faith by his calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Firmitude of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation of Confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Basis of Orthodoxy I have expatiated my self at large upon this Great Father not only to inform my self of his true and genuine Sense in this Point but also to unveil those Imposturous Gulleries which several misguiding Writers obtrude on their easie Readers under the Umbrage of this eminent Author by depraving his Sense and contorting his meaning which my self have been too sensible of being before I had read him often impos'd on by their plausible Quotations out of him The next Author I shall discuss will be Epiphanius who in his 39th Haeres says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon this Rock of firm Faith I will build my Church Now that he by this Saying do's not exclude Peters Person is evident by his other Sayings as first in his Ancorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it did become the Prince of the Apostles that Solid Rock on which the Church of God was built c. And Adversus Catharos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Peter the highest top of the Apostles who became to us indeed a firm Rock founding the Faith of our Lord. And in the
limited to his Person but derivable to the Governors of the Church even to the consummation of the World One thing I shall add more which tends much to Peters Glory which is that in St. Austin's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he De Agon Christi Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus c. And in Serm. 49. in Evang. Johan Dicit Petro in quo uno format Ecclesiam c. And in Serm. 13. Evang. Matt. In illo ergo uno Apostolo id est Petro in ordine Apostolorum primo precipuo in quo figurabatur Eccclesia He then only of all the Apostles representing the Church was entrusted not only with the Keys of Heaven but with the Keys of the Church as St. Austin affirms Serm. 124. de temp Credendae erant Petro Claves Ecclesiae imo creditae sunt ei Claves Regni Coelorum He then may be said to have receiv'd them in their largest latitude and extent and in their Independent Jurisdiction as Head of the Church and of the Apostolick Quire the Rest receiv'd them in a lower narrower acceptation as Members of that Society He receiv'd them immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From our Lord himself from our Lords own Mouth as Chrysostom affirms They receiv'd them by a Proxy or participatively either by him or as Photius thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Person of their Prince 'T is most certain he first receiv'd them and as Tertull. de pudic affirms he first made use of them Primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum Coelestis Regni Optatus con Parm. says The Keys were given to him only to preserve Unity Stant tot innocentes peccator accipit Claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur but then he acknowledges they were to be communicated to the Rest but withal grants Peter the preference herein De Schism Lib. 7. Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit Claves Regni Coelorum communicandas coeteris solus accepit If you do believe thus much I shall hold no further Dispute with you about the Keys Now tho' I have already said something to your Quotation in St. Matt. 18. 18. I shall here make some addition That the Fathers did not attribute an equality of Power in the Keys to the rest of the Apostles with Peter by vertue of that place is evident by their Expounding it of Fraternal Correption giving by these words to the injur'd party Power of binding and loosing the Offender This is St. Chrysost Sense of this place And St. Hierom likewise In qualibet causâ nos frater loeserit demittendi habemus potestatem And St. Ambrose says Cum concordaveris cum fratre solvisti eum Peter also seems to take it in this meaning for presently upon Christs saying Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven He asks him Domine quoties peccabit in me frater dimittam ei Origen comes nearest the point of any and do's clearly decide it in his Notes on St. Matt. where he says that those words Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound on Heaven were common both to Peter and those that did admonish their Brothers But as for the words Dabo tibi Claves he says they were deliver'd separate apart to him that he might have something peculiar and egregious above the Rest his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the same place he do's acknowledge that what was spoken apart to him did far exceed what was spoken in common to the Rest those words do really appear more Authoritative and Extensive than the Power of binding and loosing granted the Rest which contains not the total but partial Acts of the Keys for they besides their including Power of Solution and Alligation are Badges of Dominion This made our Savior when he gave his Apostles the Power of binding and loosing to make no mention of the Keys reserving that Honour for St. Peter As for your Citation out of St. John 20. v. 5. here is likewise no mention of the Keys Christ did by virtue of these words give them all full Jurisdiction and Authority over the Universe In this their Apostolick Commission they were all equal but this was granted them not in reference to one another but in relation to the whole World of which they were all Princes and Heads whereas Dabo tibi Claves was spoken to Peter apart after a particular manner not competent to the other with a particular Blessing sprung from a particular Act of his confessing Christ his Divinity Christ alluding to his Name and declaring to him his Fathers Name and this was done in the presence of the Rest to shew them he design'd him their Head and Prince The next thing I am to remark is your Quotation out of St. Ambrose Claves illas Regni Coelorum in Beato Petro cuncti suscipimus Then you give me a check for saying they receiv'd them à Petro whereas you say it was in Petro. I shall not concern my self in the defence of this Criticism I know there is much to be said for either of the Opinions as you may see in Salmeron some say à some in and some per Petrum as you may see in Tertull. Scorp Nam si adhuc clausum putas esse Coelum memento Claves ejus hic Dominum Petro per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse And accordingly Greg. Nyss de Cast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to the Bishops the Key of Caelestial Honors per Petrum St. Ambrose Lib. Sacerd. dign says Cum Petro cum illo suscipimus omnes but I shall wave these niceties and come to your Quotation Claves illas Regni Coelorum in B. Petro cuncti suscipimus And here you left out a very material word Sacerdotes The Fathers did not mean by this saying a Minister of a Separate Reform'd Church but a Priest of the Catholick Church and the word Priest doth imply both Altar and Sacrifice Having thus gloss'd upon the words I grant them to be true The Master of the Sentences acknowledges every Priest to receive the Keys with his Sacerdotal Order Lib. 4. Distinct 19. Cum enim recipit ordinem Sacerdotalem simul has Claves recipit Now tho' every Parish Priest has the Keys as really and as truly as a Bishop or Primate yet he has them not in so ample and full a manner as they have but in a Circumscrib'd limited Sense he having no power to use them but on such as are in subjection to him which are fewer in number than they who are under a Bishop But upon examining this Author out of whom you have quoted so much I find him to ascribe the Power of the Keys only to the true Church Jus ligandi atque solvendi solis permissum est Sacerdotibus recte ergo Ecclesia hoc sibi vindicat quae veros habet Sacerdotes Haeresis vindicare non potest quae veros non habet Sacerdotes
Ends without Beginnings Beginnings without Ends. Interpretes falsi extrema ponunt superiora praetereunt partis immemores partem subdolè comprimentes says St. Cyprian De unitate And St. Chrysost to the same effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Verbis Isaiae Serm. 1. To cut off words from what follows to draw them from their Relation to take words naked and destitute of the assistance of the praecedaneous or subsequent Matter The best palliation I can make for you is that you did not consult St. Basil as you once fancy'd I did not Theophyl but that you glean'd it up out of some Author ready trim'd for your purpose and being first deceiv'd your self endeavour'd to deceive me this is a branch of what the Apostle says Decipientes decepti Therefore for the future be cautious what Authors you trust Now besides what has been already alledg'd to prove Pasce Oves meas to be primitively spoken to Peter only I shall in lieu of a Mantissa add the ensuing Authorities St. Chrysost Hom. 87. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus says unto Simon Jona Do you love me more than these Feed my Sheep Why did he pass by the rest and speak to him about the Sheep because he was the Prince of the Apostles the Mouth of the Disciples and the top of the Society Theophyl in his Comments on St. John 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After Christ had concluded his Dinner he delivered into the Hands of Peter the Government of all the Sheep he deliver'd them to this Man not to any other By these Quotations 't is manifest that Christ spoke only to him directing his Order solely to him and that he said nothing to the Rest altho' they stood by having given them their Commission before Theophyl gives two Reasons of this the main and principal was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because he was the Prince and Mouth of the Apostolick Order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then to shew him he ought to be of good courage as having the Sin of his denial expugn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Cyril on St. John He only asks Simon altho' the other Apostles stood by CHAP. VI. That St. Peter 's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation That Peter by vertue of Pasce Oves meas had Vniversal Jurisdiction Several nice Distinctions answered That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor With an Apostrophe to him BUT besides the Authority of these Fathers the Context highly favours my Opinion perspicuously evidencing these words originally to be spoken to Peter only and my Argument runs thus To him only it was reply'd Pasce Oves meas who was ask'd Diligis me plus his But Peter only was ask'd that Question therefore the Reply was directed to him solely the other Apostles being most visibly secluded and shut out by the Comparison Plus his But besides this the following Discourse 'twixt our Savior and him further illustrates this with a Meridian Ray he only being said to be Contristated to him only Crucifixion was foretold to him only it was said Thou when thou growest Old c. But if this be not a sufficient Mercuries Rod to chase away your Cavils Do but weigh in just Ballances the Reason why our Savior said these words to him and you will find it discordant to Reason to admit the other Apostles equally with him concern'd in them For if Christ had design'd him to be no more a Pastor than any of the Rest by vertue of these words the Question had been more rationally stated thus Simon Jona do you love me as much as any of the other do But our Savior asking him whether he lov'd him more than the Rest did by the shape and frame of the Question intend him a particular Superiority above the Rest He then loving Christ more than they had a larger Commission a more diffus'd Authority a particular Jurisdiction and Grant to feed Christs Sheep more than they had This is Maldonatus Sense of it Hic Christus a Petro singulare quiddam requirit quod caeteri non habent aliquid ergo vicissim illi dare vult proprium singulare quo caeteris antecederet This seems to me most serenely to be the Native and Genuine meaning of our Saviors Question disarray'd of all Heretical Depravations otherwise I desire to know to what purpose and designment was the Interrogation of a greater degree of love why not of an equal portion if the Reward were to be equal Now that this his egregious Love was the Motive that induc'd Christ to grant him this Commission and that it was a necessary and essential qualification for the obtainment of it seems clear and the words may be Paraphras'd thus If you do love me more than these feed my Sheep if you do not I will not have you feed them Peter's Modesty would not permit him to say that he did love Christ more than the Rest but he did submissively appeal to our Saviors unerring Judgment who knew the secret Recesses and Affections both of his and of the Hearts of the Rest Christ by Commanding him to feed his Sheep did declare him the Greatest Lover This Explication of the place is facil natural and openly lies upon the Surface of the words and is agreeable to the Sense of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost de Sacerd. Lib. 2. Christ discoursing Peter the chief of the Apostles says Peter do you love me He confessing that he did Christ subjoins If you love me feed my Sheep And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you love me preside over your Brethren St. August de Temp. Serm. 149. Dom. Jesus respondenti amorem commendat agnos suos Et ad Fratres in Eremo Serm. 28. Quia amavit meruit amari meruit audire Pasce Oves meas And Lib. 4. de Consensu Evang. Postremo suas Oves Petro se amanti eumque amorem ter consitenti commendat Ideo commisit Christus Petro ut pasceret gregem quia charitatem ejus agnovit Enarrat Psal 18. Ambrose Considering then that according to the Sense of the Scriptures and Fathers Love was the occasion of his Advancement to this sublime Eminence according to the proportion and measure of his Love was the extension and latitude of his Power And thus it is irrational to admit the Rest to be equal sharers with him in this Pastoral Commission for the Authority of feeding being the recompence of his Love he loving more than the Rest exceeded them in that Commission it being most unreasonable to imagin that any could equalize him herein without loving Christ equally to him which they did not as has been already determin'd by our Saviors Umpirage Peter then surmounting them all by his Ardent Love had this glorious Prerogative above them to be by Christ himself constituted his Supreme Pastor And herein St. Ambrose affords his Symphony