Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.

SECT. III.

The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles, but a promise of special success in his preaching.

H. T. adds, The Minor is proved, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, St. Matth. 16. 18. (the whole was built on him.)

Answ. THe Argument seems to be this. He who is the Rock on which Christ would build his Church he was next after Christ the Foundation of the whole Church. But Peter was the Rock on which Christ would build his Church. Ergo. In which there are these things supposed. 1. That the term [Rock] is as much as a Foundation, and so it is not the absolute quality of firmness onely, but also the relative use of a stone or a rock in building, which is imported by it. 2. That the term [Rock] notes Peter's person. 3. That it notes Peter's person alone. 4. That it notes Peter's person as be∣ing a Rock so as no other, but Christ, was a Rock as he was. 5. That the Building upon this Rock notes Peter's person in respect of his singular Rule not given to other Apostles. 6. That he was the Foundation next after Christ. 7. That the Church comprehends the militant Church visible. 8. That it notes the whole Church of Christ even the Apostles themselves: each of these is to be examined. 1. The term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] here used, whether it be translated [Rock or stone] I deny not to denote not so much the absolute property of stability, as the relative use of a foundation in a Building. 2. Though some of the Ancients make Christ the Rock, others the confession of Christ, or the faith in him, which Peter had professed, yet by reason of the occasion of the speech, and the Preface [I say unto thee] and the commemora∣tion

of his Name [Thou art Peter] and the allusion to that Name in the choice of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Cephas in Syriack] I deny not that by [this Rock or stone] is meant Peter's person, nor thirdly, that it notes his person alone, nor fourthly, that it notes Peter's person in a singular manner, so as that there is something peculiar to Peter intimated thereby. But I deny, 1. That it notes Peter's singular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apostles. 2. That he was so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them, as is the conceit of some of the Romanists. 3. That the term [Church] notes the visible Church as visible. 4. That it notes the whole visible Church universally taken. And each of these I prove thus.

1. If the term [Rock or Stone] note Peter's person as becoming a Founda∣tion or Foundation-stone by such an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apostles with Peter, then it doth not note Peter's singular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apostles: but the term [Rock or Stone] notes Peter's person, as becoming a Foundation or Foundation-stone by such an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apostles with Peter. Ergo. The Major is of it self evident. The Minor is thus proved. That act whereby Peter's person became a Foundation or Foundation-stone was Christ's building his Church on him. But that act notes not any Rule or Dominion, and was common to other Apostles with Pe∣ter. Ergo. The Major is of it self evident. The Minor is proved thus▪ The act whereby Christ built his Church on Peter was Peter's preaching of the same Doctrine which he professed. But that act notes not any Rule or Do∣minion, and was common to other Apostles with Peter. Ergo. The Minor I take for granted: Papists do not ascribe Rule or Dominion to Friers that preach, and other Apostles preached Christ as well as Peter. Now that Christ builded his Church on Peter by his preaching is proved thus. That act by which and no other the Church of Christ is said to be built, is that act whereby Christ built his Church on Peter. But it is the preaching of the Doctrine that Peter professed and no other act by which the Church of Christ is said to be built. The Major is evident of it self. The Minor is proved, 1. By those places which speak of building the Church, they still import teaching not rule, as appears by an induction, Acts 9. 31. Rom 15. 20. 1 Cor. 8. 1, 10. & 10. 23. & 14 4. 17. Gal. 2. 18. 1 Thess. 5. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 5. and the com∣pound Verb used Acts 20. 30. 1 Cor. 3. 10, 12. Ephes. 2. 20, 22. Col. 2. 7. Jude 20. and the Noun Rom. 14. 19. & 15. 2. 1 Cor. 3. 9. & 14. 3, 5, 12. 2 Cor. 10. 8. & 12. 19. & 13. 10. Ephes. 4. 12, 16, 29. do all shew that the Building of the Church or Saints is by instruction, not by rule, the work being sometimes mu∣tual, as 1 Thess. 5. 11. Ephes. 4. 10. Jude 20. and sometimes the matter by which the building is, being for informing and teaching, as Ephes. 4. 29. and some∣times the Builders are termed Teachers, as Ephes 4. 11, 12. and that Text Ephes. 2. 20. (which H. T. allegeth) the Building being by Prophets as well as Apostles can be understood of no other Building than by teaching, there∣fore so also must be understood Matth. 16. 18.

2. It is further proved from 1 Cor. 3. 10. where the Apostle tells the Corin∣thians, that as a wise Master-builder he had laid the Foundation, and that Foundation which he laid was Jesus Christ, vers. 11▪ and vers. 5. he shews how

that was, to wit, in that he was a Minister by whom with Apollos the Corinthi∣ans believed, and that thereby they were God's Building, and God's Husbandry, vers. 9. to wit, by his planting, Apollos watering, and God's increase, vers. 6. which can be referred to no other acts but teaching or preaching of the faith of Christ, in which Paul counts himself a Master-builder, that built not on Peter's foundation, or any others, Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel, and consequently the building of the Church, Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel.

3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine, such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows, that the building of the Church is by Doctrine, and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it, not of Rule or Dominion. Yea, the Coun∣cil of Trent it self, Sess. 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation, a∣gainst which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail; and thereby intimates the Foundation, Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine.

4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching, not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire. No where is a Prince said to edifie, but Prophets, Apostles, and other Teachers; nor is Excommunication, Ordination, calling of Councils, and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification, but teaching and reproving, 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church, Matth. 16. 18.

5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise, Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter, but of what Christ would do by him, and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power, but of singular work.

6. The end of the power, which the Pope claims, is for the exalting of himself, and his visible Monarchy, but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter, but the use of him for setting up his Church. The Popes power is (as all experience witnesseth) for the destruction of the Church, not for edification; and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18.

If any say, How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him? I answer, in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching, as Acts 2. & 3. & 4. & 10. appears: and seems to be observed by Peter, as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise, Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other, though afterwards he chose Paul, who did labour more abundantly than the rest, 1 Cor. 15. 10.

2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ, as that the other Apostles were laid on him, as a stone supporting them, is proved 1. From Ephes. 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone, in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord; therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building, and it is Christ, and not Peter, in whom all the Building is fitly framed together. 2. From Revel. 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations, and not one singular one sup∣porting

the rest, but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles, none of whom is the Foundation of the rest.

3. That the term [Church] Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible, is proved, 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church, but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church, but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it. 2. In that Christ promised, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it. But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible, many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish.

4. That [my Church, Matth. 16. 18.] is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter, but that cannot be true, sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul, and he denies he built on anothers Foundation, Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself, sith Peter was part of the universal Church, and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter, which are absurd.

Which things being evinced it appears, 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had, and so belongs not to any Successour. 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction, (in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship, pag. 75.) for that Christ expresly forbade, but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel, recompensing his readiness to ac∣knowledge Christ. And this Christ had elsewhere promised, Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of m••n. Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope. As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built; we would most gladly it were true, that the Pope were such, we should then honour him and kiss his Toe: but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years, he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God, and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ.

I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Hea∣ven, which the Pope is painted with, as having them in his hands, and by which he was wont to claim his power. But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims, sith even in the Coun∣cil of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution, the Keys are in their hands, and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope: therefore I need not insist on that here, sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it.