St. Peter's supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin fathers with a detection and confutation of the errors of Protestant writers on this article : together with a succinct handling of several other considerable points.

THE THIRD PART. (Book 3)

CHAP. I. Of the Keys. That they denote Supreme Power. Whether Sobna were High-Priest? Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews. Whe∣ther the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs? The difference betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood.

MY ensuing Task will be to treat of the Keys, which I design here to do with as much brevity as the avoidance of obscurity will permit. I prov'd in my Papers to you, that they, by a general acceptation, were Sym∣bols and Ensigns of Dominion: And moreover, that by a Scriptural Metaphor in Isaias 22. they denoted Supreme, Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction. To my first Proof you are as silent as a Turkish Mute: My second you oppugn. But before I write any thing in its defence, I must tell you, That whether or no our Savior did allude to those words

in Isaias, 'tis easie enough to make out, that he, by pro∣mising them to Peter did destine him to the Supreme Spi∣ritual Power without the assistance of an allusion to this Passage: Yet 'tis highly probable, Christ did allude to them, and whosoever doth sedately poise these words Dabo Clavem domûs David, & dabo tibi Claves; will find such a strict adjacency and alliance betwixt them, as with good reason he may imagin our Savior did allude to them. But to choak up the very Springs of this Cavil, I shall now prove the Keys even in the Sense of the New Testa∣ment to decypher absolute Dominion: and accordingly you will find St. Chrysostom in his 55th Homil. on St. Matthew, to affirm, that our Savior, by vertue of his Promise of the donation of the Keys, did not only give St. Peter Power over the whole World, but to rise a Key higher, even over things in Heaven. The Keys likewise in Apocalips 1. vers. 10. signifie Supreme Power, where our Savior says of himself, Habeo Claves mortis & in∣ferni; By which Phrase absolute dominion over Death and Hell is indigitated; and St. Chrysost. affirms as much, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the Key of Hell is signified, that Christ has power over Life and Death: In his Comments on Apoc. Cap. 8. and in the same place he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Keys are ensigns of Power: And thus Oecomenius in his Comment on these words, Qui habet Clavem David, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He calls Power by the name of a Key, for he that has Power of shut∣ting and opening, is entrusted with the House; and this you may more clearly learn in the Gospel, by those words which Christ spake to Peter, Et dabo tibi Claves, &c. And a little

after he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Keys import Power; and in this Sense 'tis twice more us'd in that Book, as in Cap. 9. v. 1. Data est ei Clavis Putei & Abyssi; and Cap. 20. v. 1. Videt Johannes Angelum habentem Clavem Abyssi: And accordingly it was antiently us'd in Orphicis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Thus you may see I need not be beholden to that Pas∣sage in Isaias to prove Peters Power granted him by the gift of the Keys; but because I mention'd it as an Argument, I shall say a little in its defence, and make some Reply to your Objections. First, you say, That it cannot be prov'd, that Sobna or Eliakim were of the Priests Order: To this I answer, that you cannot disprove but that they were. This I am sure of, that I have bet∣ter Authority which avouches they were, than you have, that they were not. As for your Pretensions to the He∣brew Tongue, should I grant them just, and permit you to pass Muster for a Rabbi; yet it do's not at all follow, that I should be so conceited of you as to equalize you to St. Hierom, whose knowledge in that Language was so great, as all ought to veil to him. So I judge it my safest way not to exorbitate from his Translation impress'd by the stamp of the Catholick Church. But to keep to the Point, the Hebrew word Sochen (which is no no∣velty in that Language) is liable to different meanings. But I find St. Hierom to translate Ingredere ad Sochen thus, Ingredere ad eum, qui habitat in Tabernaculo ad Sob∣nam Praepositum Templi, The Septuag. says thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which was a place in which the Priests did abide whilst they serv'd in the Temple: thence they were called Pastophori. Pastus signifying either the Sacerdotal Pall or Lodging. And thus St. Cyril. on Book 2. Com∣ments on Isaias, upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This place is in the Temple. Hence this

Sobna is called Praepositus Templi,; and the Prophet de∣ters him from the excision of his Sepulcher, because God would transplant the Priesthood. Thus v. 18. 'tis said, Coronans te coronabit, &c. which Corn. a Lapide ob∣serves, is rendred in the Chaldee, Auferet a te Tiaram. The Septuag. says, Auferet stolam & coronam tuam glo∣riosam, by which is meant, Corona & Tiara Pontificalis: And accordingly I find St. Cyril. to call the Stola 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Holy, Sacred: And in his Second Book of his Com∣ments on Isaias, speaking of Eliakim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That the Sacerdotal Honor was conferr'd on him, is mani∣fest, by his promising to Crown him, and saying, I will give you the Stola, Oeconomy, and Power, to be able to rule the People subject to you. Now, as for Sobna, his being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I find St. Cyril to solve that Objecti∣on in his Second Book of Comments on Isaias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He inveights against Sobna the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who had got the High-Priesthood, but abus'd it. Your other Ar∣gument to cut him off from being High-Priest, is, because he is called Praefectus Domûs, scilicet Regiae, as you add, by which you would have him to be only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Stew∣ard of the Kings House; but you must understand, that the Temple was called Antonomasticè Domus; and accor∣dingly, our Savior, when he drove the Buyers and Sellers our of the Temple, told them, that his House was call'd Domus precationis, &c. Now if Josephus makes no men∣tion of them, as you affirm, that at best is but a Nega∣tive, and so inconcludent: I find he is silent of several things which the Scripture makes mention of; he takes no notice of Gods punishing the Israelites for their mur∣muring

whilst the Flesh of the Quails stuck betwixt their Teeth. I hope I may have the liberty to believe it, tho' he be found mute herein; but if his Authority be so sway∣ing with you, I shall hope you will not disbelieve Absoloms Hair to have weigh'd two hundred Sicles, and that it could scarcely be powl'd in Eight days time. Then you say, that the High-Priests of the Jews were Types of Christ, not of Peter. That they were Types of Christ in some Sense cannot be deny'd; so was Salomon for his peaceable Reign, Christ being styl'd Princeps pacis; so was Isaac, carrying the Wood to burn the Sacrifice, as Christ did the Wood of the Cross; and Jonas for abiding Three Days and Nights in the Whales Belly, as Christ was in the Sepulcher; and Joseph sold by his Brothers, as he was by Judas. And many more Types might be mention'd, but this is not worth the insisting on, and it may easily be prov'd, that the Jewish High-Priests were Typical of the Christian, if the Point were material; I am sure St. Cyprian in his Epistles Expounds those things which are said concerning the one, of the other.

The next thing you affirm is, That by the Keys in that place, is not meant any Supreme Authority, either in Church or State, such as the Romanist's claim for Peter and his Suc∣cessors, for Sobna and Eliakim, if Priests were subject to King Hezechias, and the Kings in those Days, and many Ages after, were Supreme in all Causes, both Ecclesiastical and Civil.

To this I answer, that 'tis not necessary to my purpose, to go about to prove what is meant by the Keys men∣tion'd by Isaias, St. Peters Authority being not grounded upon that, but on the words in St. Matthew, Et dabo tibi Claves.

As for the other part of your Assertion, That the Jewish High-Priests were subject to the Jewish Kings, (whom you affirm to be Supreme in all Causes, both Ecclesiastical and

Civil, and to have govern'd Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure) I find my self oblig'd to make some Reply to it, as likewise, of Christian Princes (to whom from the Jewish you descend): But I would more willingly have declin'd treating of this Point, knowing how nice and dangerous it is to handle it; and that now I walk per ig∣nes suppositos cineri doloso: But because you have so fairly thrown it in my way, and being treating of the Keys, it will seem fit to clear their Authority, I cannot well avoid taking some notice of it, which I shall here do, making a short halt in taking up this Atalanta's Apple, which you seem to have drop'd to impede my course. It may appear strange that I, who am of the Laity, should write in favor of the Clergy; and that you, who are a Divine should endeavour to establish Laicocephalism, and depress the Clergy, robbing it of its just Rights, and thereby becom∣ing false to your own Coat: But if this be well inspected, there is much to be said in your Vindication; for you (knowing that your New Religion was begun, and hitherto maintain'd by the Secular Power) cannot but in gratitude and policy give it the preference; however, you may per∣haps in this present conjuncture, be willing to recal part of what you have so prodigally granted.

The first you mention to have govern'd Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure, is Moses; and it is granted you, that he did so; but then you are to look on him as a mixt Person, in whom both the Sacerdotal and Regal Power were combin'd: So what he did herein, was not purely by virtue of his Kingly, but Priestly Power. This is clear out of St. Austin's Testimony, in his Questions on Levi∣ticus, Lib. 3. Quest. 23. Si Moises Sacerdos non fuit, quo∣modo per illum omnia gerebantur? si fuit, quomodo summum Sacerdotium ab ejus fratre incipit? which he thus solves. Ambo erant summi Sacerdotes, Aaron propter vestem Pon∣tificalem,

Moses propter excellentius ministerium. Thus likewise Philo in his Life of Moses gives this account of him in his Third Book, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Such was the Life and Death of Moses, who was both King, Legislator, High-Priest, and Prophet. And accord∣ingly Greg. Nazianzen in his Sixth Oration calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prince of Princes, and Priest of Priests. Now the Secular and Ecclesiastick Pow∣er which was united in the Person of Moses, was after∣wards parted betwixt Eleazer and Joshua, the one suc∣ceeding him in the Priestly, and the other in the Princely Power; as you may see in the 27th of Numbers, where God commands Moses to give Joshua part of his Glory; but in the same Chapt. you may see that he subjected Joshua to Eleazer, at whose word, both he and all the Children of Israel were to go in and out.

Your next Example is of Salomon, whom I grant to have remov'd Abiathar from the Pontificate, and to have sub∣rogated Sadock in his place. But first you are to under∣stand, that he was not depos'd for any matter of Faith, or concerning Religion; but for Treason and Rebellion: For conspiring with Adonia (whom he had Anointed King) a∣gainst Salomon. Next you are to observe, that Salomon exauctorated him not as King, but as Prophet, to whom God had committed some things after an extraordinary manner. So what he acted herein, was not by his own Royal Power, but by Authority and Commission from God, by Divine Inspiration, as the Text evidences, Ʋt impleretur Sermo Dei quem locutus est super domo Eli in Silo. This Action therefore of his, do's not at all prove him to be superior to the High-Priest: But only that God was pleas'd to make use of him as an Executer for the perfor∣mance of a Sentence which he had formerly denounc'd:

And this will be easily understood if recourse be made to History. Aaron had two Sons, Eleazar and Ithamar: E∣leazar as eldest succeeded him in the Priesthood, his Son Phinees succeeded him, and his Posterity down to Heli continued in that Holy Function. At which time the Po∣sterity of Phinees incuriously administring the Priesthood, God was pleas'd to punish their neglect, by translating it from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, to wit, to Heli; in which Family it continued about 120 Years, to Salomons days, who depos'd Abiathar the—Abnepos of Heli, for conspiring with his Corrival Adonias, substitu∣ting Sadock in his place. Now as the Pontificate was remov'd by God's order from the Family of the eldest Bro∣ther to that of the younger House, so was it likewise trans∣planted from thence into the right Line, by the Authority of the same God, who was pleas'd in several things to or∣der and direct those Kings of Israel, governing as it were by them. This made Josephus to affirm in his Second Book against Appio, That God did not so much institute in Israel a Monarchy as a Theocracy or Deiarchy: But now if this Action of Salomon's deposing Adonias, be con∣strued in favor of the Prince, as if he thereby were Supe∣rior to the High-Priest, The Clergy has as strong an Argument for their Superiority, in Samuel's declaring King Saul dethron'd; but I look on both these Examples as extraordinary, and consequently not Presidential.

The next Example is David, but he being likewise King and Prophet, what can be alledg'd concerning him, is answered in what is said of Salomon; it is moreover mention'd of him, that what he did in Church Matters was, Juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege Domini.

As for the Example of Ezechias, tho' it be granted he constituted Levites in the House of God; yet in the Se∣cond Book Paralip. Cap. 29. you may perceive, that

what he did herein was, Secundum dispositionem David & Gad videntis, & Nathan Prophetae. Siquidem Domini praeceptum fuit per manum Prophetarum ejus. And here∣in you will likewise find, that he was much ruled by Isaias, as in Eccles. 48. 25. Fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo, & fortiter ivit in via David Patris sui, quam man∣davit illi Isaias. Thus you may perceive, that the Ex∣amples of these Kings are not at all apposit to your Point, they not proving, that Princes by their sole Royal Power may intermeddle in Church Affairs, or reform Religion in its Substance; enacting things by their own Authority, contrary to the Assent of Gods High-Priest and Prophets. Some Kings by extraordinary Command, as Kings and Prophets did concern themselves in Church Affairs; O∣thers not without consent and assistance of the Priests, did very laudably use their utmost power to destroy Idolatry, and restore Discipline; but which of them disown'd the Authority of the High-Priest? abrogated his-Power, and invested himself with it? Now that the Kings of Is∣rael were not Supreme in Church Matters, seems evident by the word of God spoken to the High-Priest Eliakim in Isaias 22. where after he had promis'd to give him the Key of David, he explains to him the Power of it; Et aperiet & non erit qui claudat, & claudet, & non erit qui aperiat; by which he plainly makes him Supreme in Church Affairs, no Person whatsoever being able to ex∣clude whom he opened to; Or to introduce whom he shut out. And to Sinew this Argument with a stronger Nerve, you will find that Jehosophat, who was a Religi∣ous Prince, would not handle Church Affairs, knowing that they belong'd to the High-Priest, as in Paralip. 2. 19. Ananias autem Sacerdos & Pontifex vester in his quae ad Deum pertinent praesidebit. And on the contrary, Osias, who presum'd to usurp the Sacerdotal Function, and offer

Incense to God, was by the incensed Deity struck with Le∣prosy. By what I have mention'd it will clearly appear, how irrational it is for you to produce the Jewish Kings as Examples to justifie your former Kings exorbitant tampe∣ring in Church Affairs, there being no Parallel at all be∣twixt them; They acting therein as Kings and Prophets Authoriz'd by Gods extraordinary Commission, and in their Reformations joining with the High-Priest; whereas yours was in opposition to him, and warranted by nothing but Secular Might. But now after all this, if you could clearly prove, that the Jewish Kings were superior to the High-Priest, and Supreme (Quatenùs Kings) in Church Affairs; it would not follow, that that similitude should hold good amongst Christians; The Priesthood in the Old Testament being Imperfect, Carnal, Umbratick, and Prefigurative, of one that was Compleat, Sublime and Spiritual. Hence St. Chrysost. Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New, ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosie of the Body; but to these, the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul, they bring Fire; but these the Holy Ghost. And in his Orat. 5. adver. Judaeos, speaking of the Ponti∣ficate of Melchisedeck, he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish, how much more glorious is the true one?

Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs, is, Because by Divine appointment they were, Custodes utriusque Tabulae. This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof: For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King, it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversie; but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it: That by the

frequent reading of it, he might learn to fear God, and keep his Statutes; and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword, he should defend the true Religion therein con∣contain'd: As for the Interpretation of the Law that be∣long'd to the High-Priest, according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scienti∣am, & Legem requirent ex ore ejus: They were as Jose∣phus affirms in his Second Book against Appio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Judges of Controversies: And in Deut. 17. Princes were by Gods institution to take the Copy of it from the High-Priest: And in the same Chapter, in doubtful Cases the Jews were oblig'd to recurr to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations. Now whether the Jewish High-Priest were liable to Error as you assert, is not worth my present Discussion (no Ca∣tholick being bound to believe the Popes Infallibility, but in Conjunction with a Council;) But this is clear, the Jews were absolutely oblig'd to submit to his determinations un∣der penalty of Death, he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS. By this you may imagin how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirm'd him Fallible, and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions. You see our Savior put no such fancies into their Heads, but paid much respect to Moses's Chair; and tho' he knew that those who sat in it, were bad Men, yet he says, Quaecunque vobis dixerint, facite: And St. Paul stiles the High-Priest (tho' a Persecutor of the Christians) Princeps Populi.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head. Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters. The Fathers Opinion of it. Particu∣lar Emperors, who are falsly affirm'd by Pro∣testants to Act as Heads of the Church. Of our English Kings. Of Henry VIII. Of this our present King James II.

YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes, these you assert to be Heads of the Church; and your Reason for this Assertion is this, That if a King be Head of his Kingdom, he is Head of the Church, because that is in his Kingdom. This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument, to prove a Nero Head of the Church, be∣cause in its Infancy it was in his Dominions. But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein, and ac∣quaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom, and how they may be Supreme, Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus, non ut Christiani, sed ut homines sunt: Reges non ut Christiani praesunt, sed ut homines politici, &c. And again, Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos, ut Christiani sunt homines; id est, Cives terrenae Civitatis: Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum, Domestici Dei, Ecclesiae membra. Hence you may see, that a King may be abso∣lute in his Kingdom, and yet not be Head of the Church; those two Estates residing in two several Persons, as being of distinct and different Natures. The ones Dominion

extending to Mundan, Temporal, Corruptible things; the Body and Goods of Fortune; the other reaching to things Spiritual, Eternal, Celestial, to things appertain∣ing to another World, and Salvation of the Soul. And 'tis necessary to have two such distinct Governors: The Civil Power to maintain Peace, to protect and secure us in our Temporals: The Ecclesiastick to teach us the true Worship of God, to feed us with Food that perisheth not, to direct us in Spirituals, to the attainment of Eter∣nal Bliss. These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other, cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another (or any way interfere but by way of abuse) but rather assistant to one another, being in themselves Friendly and Amicable. Hence Samuel ha∣ving anointed David King, kissed him, the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity: This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement, and Accord betwixt these two Go∣vernments; they are both Independent, so as one might not usurp on the other, or hinder the other in the due Exe∣cution of their Charge. The Prince is absolute in Ad∣ministration of all Civil Matters, in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject; and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus, & solo Deo minor, as Tertull. has it, ad Scapul; or as Chrysost. says in Hom. 2. Antioch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth.

The Priest on the other side presides in Church Go∣vernment, in Spiritual Affairs, in Resolutions of Contro∣versies in Faith, in Explications of Articles of Belief, in In∣terpretation of Scripture, &c. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale, and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale. They are both of Divine Institution: The Kingly Power communi∣cated to Princes from Heaven, their Charter being de∣riv'd from God, by whom Kings Reign. The Priestly

Jurisdiction originated from Christ, subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power. Now to admit and submit to the Sa∣cerdotal Power, as Supreme in things meerly and purely Spiritual, do's not at all dislustre the Regal Sway, nor de∣fringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction, the former properly insinuating it self to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses, where the Scepter of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion.

Having premis'd thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power, I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes, whom you affirm to have govern'd Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure. Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs, is not deny'd, several of them being Arians; but that they did it de jure, will not be yielded you, neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right; for 'tis evi∣dent, that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles. Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their Successors into the Hands of Secular Princes, I shall herein be satisfied. This I am sure of, that it continued in their Hands above 300 Years, Con∣stantine being the first Christian King; and 'tis evident e∣nough, that he never attempted to rob them of it, and as∣sume it to himself; and the other good Emperours would not intermeddle with Church-Affairs, but by assent of the Church, and to assist it: Some other Emperors that were busie herein, ruin'd themselves thereby, and some re∣pented of it, as Constantius by name, who upon his Death∣bed declar'd this to be one of the three things that most disquieted him, which Nazianz. mentions to be these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; The murder of his Relations; his proclaiming the

Apostate Julian Emperor, his Innovation in matters of Faith. But that which gives me greatest satisfaction here∣in, is, because I find the Fathers to check the Emperors when they put their Fingers into Church Matters, which had been very unproper, had they look'd on them as Heads of the Church. Thus Athanasius, Ad solit. vit. agentes, speaking of Constantius the Emperor's usurping Power in the Church, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For who is he that seeing him ruling over the lawful Bishops, and presiding in Ecclesiastick Judgments will not consequently say, this is the abomination of desolati∣on spoken of by the Prophet Daniel. And in the same Epistle he tells the Emperor wherein his Power properly con∣sists, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; God has committed the Kingdom to you; but he has intrusted the Affairs of the Church with us. And accord∣ingly St. Ambrose tells the Emperor upon the like occasion, Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum, non sacrorum; ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent, ad Sacerdotem Ecclesia: In his Epist. 33. ad Imperat. and in his Epist. 32. he tells him, In causâ fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare. This Power of the Clergy in Ecclesiasticks is acknowledg'd by Ignatius ad Smyrn. where he expresly says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Bishop Ʋsher thus translates, Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eo∣rum, quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent; the words may be tran∣slated either praeter Episcopum, or sine Episcopo. This Priestly Power is acknowledged by the Fathers: Hence 'tis that Nazianz. in his Orat. 17. ascribes to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A Dominion, Tribunal and Principacy: And in the same Orat. he affirms their Power nobler than

the Secular, where speaking of the Governour, he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For we our selves rule, I will add, that our Prin∣cipacy is greater and more perfect: And accordingly he tells the Governor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That the Law of Christ had sub∣jected him to his Dominion and Tribunal. St. Chrysoft. seems to be of the same Opinion, Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae, Vidi Dominum: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Priesthood is a more venerable and greater Principacy than a Temporal Kingdom; affirm∣ing, that God subjected the Kings Head to the High-Priests Hands, instructing us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That he was the greatest Prince of the two. And accor∣dingly Cyril in his 17th Catech. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; To this very day we see Earthly Princes govern'd by Ec∣clesiasticks. I have not quoted any of these Authorities with an intent to decide which of these two Powers be the greatest, but to prove, that the Fathers did acknow∣ledge them both as distinct, and as I have declar'd both of them Absolute and Independent in their kind; so I shall conclude this Point with the saying of Ignatius to that purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. You are now pleas'd to descend to particulars, mentioning the Christian Empe∣rors by name, who de facto & jure govern'd the Church. The first you pick out is Constantine, whom you have most falsly traduc'd, by making him a Head or Gover∣nor of the Church, as assuming to himself Ecclesiastick Supremacy: A Crime he both abhorr'd, and was wholly untainted with. 'Tis well known, he was a great Ho∣nourer of Sylvester Pope in his days, looking on him as Peters Successor, Supreme Head of the Church, and he

was besides a great enricher, no Sacrilegious Robber of it. He attempted not to alter any of its Articles, but em∣brac'd its Doctrin, and ratified its Conciliary Definiti∣ons, as Athanasius affirms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strengthening them by his Imperial Law. And he was so far from act∣ing as Head of the Church, as he dar'd not to judge a Bi∣shop, as Augustin affirms in his 166 Epist. Sed quia Con∣stantinus non est ausus de causâ Episcopi judicare, eam discu∣tiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit: And Ruffin. likewise, Lib. 10. Hist. Cap. 2. mentions this Answer of his to the Bishops, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potesta∣tem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos a vobis recte judicamus. As for the Objection of Caecilianus, I find it fully solved by Card. Perròn in his Third Book to King James Cap. 4. Besides, whoever considers his beha∣vior in the Council will not think he acted as Head of the Church. For, first, he would not sit down till he had desired permission of the Bishops, which Theodoret ex∣presses thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having ask'd leave of the Bishops to grant it: Eusebius thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Valesius thus translates, Nec prius sedere sustinuit quam Episcopi id nutu significâssent. Theodoret after he had mention'd the Speech he made, adds this, Haec & similia tanquam filius, & amator pacis Sacerdotibus veluti Patribus offerebat. Here he acted as a Son of the Church, not as a Head, nei∣ther did he any thing in the Council by way of defining, but by assenting to its Dicisions, being present there, rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for Decency and Order than for any thing else.

As for the Emperors Justinian, Theodosius and Charlemain, whom you likewise particularize upon the same account as you did Constantine, I must acknowledge, that they did make Laws concerning the Affairs of the Church, but

none of them made any in opposition to it, or the Defini∣tions thereof, but rather agreeable to them, reducing the Churches Faith and Canons for Discipline into Impe∣rial Laws, to the intent they might be more obey'd by their Subjects. This is no more than what was practis'd by Jovinian, who in those great differences of Opinions which were in his days, desir'd of the Orthodox Bishops a Platform of the True Faith, which Athanasius gave him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Nazianz. calls it, A Royal Gift indeed, which he confirm'd by his Imperial Power. But to return to the above mention'd Emperors, and to see how their Examples will jump with your Case. First, They made Laws, that the Catholick Religion should be observ'd in all their Dominions: You make Laws for its subversion, altering its Articles, and foisting in their room new Nega∣tives in opposition to them. They made Laws in defence of the Pope, acknowledging him the Prince and Head of Gods Holy Priests: You make Laws in defiance of him, pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper. They made Laws which were according to his Approbation, the Rules and Definitions of the Church, backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword: You make Laws in affront to him, and against the Decrees of the Church. Thus you see their proceedings herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship, nor with Edward the Sixth's Reforma∣tion of the Ecclesiastick Laws, nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons. But that you may more be con∣vinc'd herein, I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperors Decrees, which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party, and see how they quadrate; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Justi∣nian, Novel. 131. We enact, that according to their own Sanctions, the most Holy Pope of Old Rome, be the Prince

of High-Priests: And in his Decrees about Justiniana, he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and in Justin. eod. Lib. 7. he says thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church, not to be referr'd to your Holi∣ness, as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God.

As for Theodosius, I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict, Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserv'd, as deliver'd to him by St. Peter, should be observ'd, enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it. I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it: This he enjoyn'd those under him to be of, under pe∣nalty of being reputed Hereticks, and Infamous, and de∣servers of Punishment. Thus much Power in Church-Af∣fairs is still granted every King; and to speak the Truth, 'tis their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresie and Schism: By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators, not by usurping Autho∣rity over the Church, depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with, and appropriating it to themselves, changing Articles of Belief establish'd by General Councils, and Antient Traditionary Truths, handed down from Father to Son; these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor, who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs, as you may per∣ceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea, Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; It is not lawful for me, who am one of the Laity to concern my self about such things.

After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home, and being return'd into your own Coun∣trey, you affirm of our English Kings, that Church-Af∣fairs were both de facto & jure, govern'd by them. This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors, you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Histori∣an.

I have already prov'd, that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power; and that these two Governments are distinct; and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost. who in his Hom. 4. de ver∣bis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; There be other li∣mits of a Kingdom, and other limits of the Priesthood, but this is greater than that. As for Matter of Fact, I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated, either by their Passion, or allur'd by a curiosity of intermedling with what did not ap∣pertain to them, have intrench'd upon the Immunities of the Church, and asserting a pretended Right, have clashed with the Roman Bishop, and medled de facto with Church-Matters, but quo jure is the Question. You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power, unless it be allow'd of for granted, That what∣ever a King do's is lawful. Their Quarrels with the Pope were chiefly about Investitures, and disposal of Bisho∣pricks: They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals; or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope, they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy. A Pope may be to blame, and so may a King; but neither of these Institu∣tions (as Sacred) ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parrallel home to your Case: Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ?

Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns, Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil? Did they rob the Pope of his Power, and assume Papal Jurisdicti∣on? Did they vendicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs, ordering Laymen, Vicar Generals in Spi∣ritualities, as Cromwell was, who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops, as Head over them? This would to them have appear'd as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa. Suppose they clash'd with the Church of Rome, did they ever part from her, and all other Christian Churches besides, as you did in your Reformation? making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils, changing Religion, and altering Ar∣ticles of Belief? Did they pick Quarrels with the Church, and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods, Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths; Demolishing Religious Houses, violating Sacred Orders? Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh, or of those brave Princes before him? But I shall not pro∣ceed further on this Point, we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven, who well knows, how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church, and his own Royal Right; betwixt what belongs to, God and what to Caesar; what to the Miter and what to the Crown. A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors; owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms receiv'd at their forsaking Hea∣thenism, and Conversion to Christianity. In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholick Apostolick Faith, for defending whereof, this Crown obtain'd that illustrious Title. For this Prince, Pietate insignis & Ar∣mis, no less Pious than Valiant, no less Just than Good; endued with all those Adorable Qualities, which render

him amongst Kings, the most Conspicuous, amongst Mo∣narchs the most Renown'd; we ought to be highly grate∣ful to the Supreme God, whose Lieutenant he is; hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies, and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate, Perjur'd Vil∣lains, who have so long triumph'd over us, bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood. And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign, I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him, according to the Plat∣form of Tertullian, wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam: Imperium securum: Domum tutam: Exercitus fortes: Senatum fidelem: Populum probum: Orbem quietum: And I hope you will join with me herein, not formally, as when you pray for him in your Church, marring your Prayer with some oblique Reflection; but ex Pectore, Heartily wishing him all those Benedictions which he may desire as Homo, and as Caesar; Which God grant him. Morever, I would desire you to leave off injuring your Prince, in railing a∣gainst his Religion in your Sermons, falsly representing it to your cheated Auditory, impressing them with wrong Ideas of it, and thereby alienating the Affections of his Majesties Liege Subjects, which is a Crime of the great∣est magnitude, and of most dangerous Consequences; yet this freedom is taken by several, who fancy they may wreak and evaporate that Passion (which they dare not on his Sacred Person) safely against his Religion; thus slily discharging their rancour against a most incompa∣rable Prince, to whom they can ascribe no other fault, but what really in it self is Glorious and deserving Accla∣mations, namely, His returning to the bosom of the Ca∣tholick Church; which Action of his being render'd more noble by the violent Oppositions and Contrasts of his

Enemies (will maugre their spight) purchase to him sur∣passing Glory in this World, and Immortal Beatitude in that to come. He, who (like a Generous Eagle, slight∣ing the Artillery of the Sky, darting through the midst of the storm, where the flashes are most astonishing, and the claps most loud) with an undaunted Spirit, triumphantly resisted and brake through the tumul∣tuous Rage of popular fury, and stemm'd the torrent of its impetuous stream, contemning those many Crowns that did attend him, for his Conscience sake. He has not only now his Victorious Temples adorn'd by the Justice of Heaven with a Diadem more bright than that of his Predecessors (being thereby made CONTEMPTAE DO∣MINƲS SPLENDIDIOR REI:) But has an innume∣rable quantity of Celestial Crowns, beset with Stars re∣serv'd for him in the rich Treasury of Heaven, as a suitable reward for his hazarding his Temporal ones for the sake of his GOD AND RELIGION. For Thee, GREAT PRINCE, Praise has no proper Encomium, nor COM∣MENDATION a fit Panegyrick, nor this World an ade∣quate Recompence, nor thy Kingdoms a suitable Sacrifice; but that of the Hearts of thy Subjects. Too happy would this Nation be, had it understanding enough to ap∣prehend its own Good, having a Prince, who would not only protect them here on Earth, but serve as a Pilot to conduct them to Heaven.

CHAP. III. Of the Keys. In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest. That what Christ re∣ply'd, was directed immediately to Peter only. In what Sense 'twas extendible to the Rest. How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys. An Account of the Fathers who acknow∣ledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys. The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church receiv'd the Keys in St. Austin's Sense. Whether a Mini∣ster of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys? With Advice to him.

IT may now seem high time to finish my intermitted Discourse concerning the Keys, answering you like∣wise in that Point: But upon perusing your Papers, I find you write but little on this Subject, but only offer me a rude indigested Lump of Quotations, without any Me∣thod, which in lieu of becoming a Clue to conduct me, were a Skain of snarled Thred to perplex and involve me; which made me more curious in prying into the intricacies of this matter and of acquiring satisfaction herein, which I thought could not be obtain'd without reducing your Quo∣tations into some form, and then by solving them. Your chief drift in them was, I perceive, First to prove that Peter answered for the rest of the Apostles; and thence to infer,

that what was said by our Savior to him, was spoken to the Rest: By this Method you would evince the Rest to be equally concern'd with him in the donation of the Keys: This, in short, is the Web of your Design, which I shall here endeavour to unravel. This kind of Argu∣menting I find Dr. Whitaker to make use of long before you, Petrus Discipulorum omnium nomine respondit, Tu es Christus, &c. Ergo omnium nomine audivit, Tibi da∣bo Claves; but the cunning of this reasoning will be easi∣ly detected, when it is examined upon what account he may be said to answer for the Rest. Dr. Whitaker says, it was because they had the same Faith, and he only spake for them; his words are these, Non in suâ tantum personâ illam confessionem edidit Petrus; fuit enim communis illa fides atque confessio, Petri unius ore edita: But this his Opinion can never be prov'd, the Revelation of the true Faith being made to him only, as I have already ma∣nifested. As for the Fathers who affirm, that Peter an∣swered for the Rest, Salmeron says of them thus, Recte intelligendi, Orthodoxè interpretandi: And this is good Advice; for they in saying so, take the Twelve as a So∣ciety, and Peter as their chief; and in this Sense he may be said to speak for them: But then he did not speak as their Praeco, but as their Princeps, he spake not their Sense, but what God the Father had reveal'd and suggest∣ed to him; he answered what they could not answer; but they, by their silence approving his Confession upon his first promulging it, are said to answer by his Mouth; tho' properly speaking Petrus solus respondit, caeteri assen∣tiuntur: Now they being Members of that Community of which he was Supreme, the words may be said in an inferior Sense, to be spoken to the Rest, which were ori∣ginally spoken to him. But now if they had the same Faith as he had, our Saviors rejoinder had seem'd more

proper, thus, Beati estis, quia Pater meus revelavit vobis: vos estis Petrae, &c. But you see Christ addresses his Re∣ply to Peter only, the words Tu and Tibi shutting out all partnership. And this is St. Austin's Opinion of it, Serm. 5. In Festo Petri & Pauli, where speaking of Peter, he says thus, Solus inter Apostolos meruit audire; Amen dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, &c. And herein Spalato is very honest, Certè verba Christi adeo sunt arctata & voculis individu∣antibus ad unum Petrum directa, ut nefas sit ea a Petri personâ divellere & directè ad alios dirigere; certissimum est Christum cum Petro directè & proximè loqui. Now if Persons would be ingenuous, it is easily discern'd when Christ grants a thing peculiar to Peter, and when he grants a thing in common to them all; what he de∣signs the other Apostles should equally share in with him, he evidently expresses in the Plural Number. Hoc facite in mei commemorationem, this related to the Sacrifice, and concern'd them all jointly as Priests: What apper∣tain'd to Preaching and Baptizing was deliver'd in com∣mon to them all, Euntes docete omnes Gentes, Baptizantes, &c. And likewise what belongs to Remission of Sins, Ac∣cipite Spiritum, Sanctum quorum peccata rimiseritis, remit∣tuntur. What he gives Peter apart and peculiar, is in like manner evidently manifested by Christs speaking to him in the Singular Number, Tu es Petrus: Dabo tibi Claves: Confirma Fratres: Pasce Oves meas. As for your Quotation out of St. Ambrose, Quod Petro dicitur, caeteris dicitur, 'Tis granted to be true in one Sense, and I ac∣knowledge, that the Fathers have Sayings to this effect; as Origen, Dabo tibi Claves, caeteris quoque commune, and others might be mention'd, which Catholick Writers do not deny, as you may see by Salmeron, Vere dicunt Pa∣tres, verba illa dicta etiam aliis; non quod ad alios imme∣diate dicta sint, sed quod ita Petro dicta sunt, ut non sibi

soli dicta: They grant the other Apostles to partake herein, but not eodum gradu: Your Authors affirm, that they did equally share with Peter, and that he had no∣thing egregious and singular, as Dr. Whitaker affirms; Nos non aliter quam caeteri, nullo modo concredimus ac∣cepisse, nihil proprium aut singulare tributum: But I shall return to your Quotation out of St. Ambrose, granting it true derivatively, or in a subordinate inferior acceptation; this hinders not but that these words were primordially deliver'd to Peter alone, tho' in a proportionate Sense, they be extendible to the Rest, as Members of the Apostolick College, and compriz'd in him their Head. Now if (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Purple must be judg'd of by Purple; I shall by confronting St. Austin with St. Ambrose authenticate this my Explication: St. Austin Quaest. 75. Vet. & Novi Testam. on Ego rogavi pro te, says thus, Pro Petro rogabat, & pro Jacobo, & pro Johanne non rogabat; Ʋt caeteros taceam, manifestum est in Pe∣tro omnes contineri; rogans enim pro Petro, pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur: Semper enim in Praeposito populus aut corripitur, aut laudatur. Here they be said to be included in Peter as their Governor. And in the same Book, Sal∣vator cum pro se & Petro dare jubet, pro omnibus exol∣visse videtur; quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causae magisterii, ita & post Salvatorem, in Petro omnes conti∣nentur, ipsum enim constituit caput eorum. Here they are said to be contain'd in him, as in their Head. But if any one should have as nice and sagacious a Nose as Erasmus, and fancy that by the stile he can smell out this Book not to be St. Augustin's, I shall give you another Saying out of him to the same effect out of his 124th. Tract in Johan. Cum enim Petro dicitur, sequere me, nec dicitur cae∣teris, qui simul aderant; profecto eum sicut Magistrum Di∣scipuli sequebantur. Here they are included in him as

their Master: In this Sense it is not improper to say, that what Christ said to Peter was spoken to the Rest; not but that the words were primarily and immediately di∣rected to him, but because in an inferior Sense they are communicable to them all, as summ'd up in him. Now that the promise of the donation of the Keys was origi∣nally made to Peter solely, is clearly attested by the Au∣thority of Eulogius Alexandrinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Our Savior said nei∣ther to John, nor to any other of his Disciples, I will give unto thee the Keys of Heaven, but to Peter only; and upon what account they were given him, St. Chrysost. in Hom. 8. Fest. Pascal. declares, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He receiv'd the Keys as a recompence of his Orthodox Faith. And Photius much to the same Sense, in his 35th Epist. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He deli∣vered into the Hands of Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as a reward of his true Confession. Now as to the other Apostles having the Keys, I shall premise this in Honor to St. Peter; First, That it cannot be prov'd out of the Scripture, that the Keys in express words, were gi∣ven to any but to him; and unless you can shew me some place in the New Testament where our Savior says to his Disciples, Conjunctim, vobis dabo Claves; or to any of them Particulatim, tibi dabo Claves, he has the best Plea and Title to them. Now as for your Quotation out of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and out of St. John. 20. 21. to prove that the other Apostles had them; I answer, That it cannot clearly be inferr'd from either of those places, that they had them, the word Keys being not so much as mention'd there; or if it should be granted that they had them by vertue of those places of Scripture, it do's not follow

they had them in the same Sense and Amplitude that Peter had: And herein I submit to Jansenius, whose words are these, Quamvis dici potest sicut Patres frequenter dicunt, etiam omnibus Apostolis traditas Claves, loquendo de Clavibus; ut per eas communiter significatur potestas re∣mittendi retinendique peccata; sicut, ibi nulla Clavium mentio, ita non est necesse dicere Claves Petro promissas, omnibus traditas secundum eum sensum, quo Petro hic pro∣missae; non Apostolis ibi, aut alibi Claves ita traditae. Now if either, or both of these places you cite, were equi∣valent to Dabo tibi Claves, what Reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular, and general promise of them; and why he should have two Promises of the same thing, whereas one had sufficed. But, Se∣condly, I add, That whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts, they being spoken conjointly to the Twelve, Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any; but having (over and above his portion in this joint pro∣mise) a particular one apart to himself, in which the Rest were immediately no sharers; it cannot be disprov'd, but (by vertue of this singular, separate Promise made to him personally, in the presence of the Rest) that he had the Keys either alone; or if the Power of the Keys were after∣wards given to the Rest, that he was Supreme in it; he having besides the Power of Binding and Loosing, which is an effect of the Keys: The Keys themselves, which are a Badge and Symbol of that Power.

He then Originally receiv'd them as they are Ensigns of Supreme Ecclesiastick Power, Oeconomy and Stew∣ardship in Christ's House, which is the Church; and was thereby constituted his Steward, and set over all his Family. But notwithstanding all this, I shall not here go about to appropriate the Power and Use of the Keys only to him; limiting them to his sole peculiar en∣closure,

but shall grant you that they had the use of them; for Peter did not receive them so as to retain them sole∣ly to himself, but to communicate them to the other A∣postles, and following Pastors, as Thomas contra Gentes affirms, Non sic intelligitur, Petro Claves Regni com∣mississe, ut ipse solus haberet, sed per eum derivarentur ad alios. And accordingly St. Leo, Transivit quidem in alios Apostolos vis potestatis hujus, & ad omnes Ecclesiae Prin∣cipes, decreti hujus constitutio commeavit. Having yielded you thus much, I shall here only maintain the Inequali∣ty, Inferiority, and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles, to an higher, sublimer and compleater degree of it in Peter: They then may be said to have re∣ceiv'd the Keys Secondarily, Derivatively, Participatively, by their Associating, Adhering, and Communicating with him their Head and Prince, to whom after a particula∣rizing manner, they were originally given to indigitate his Plenitude and Sovereignty in them.

Origen who asks the Question, An soli Petro dantur a Christo Claves, acknowledges Peter more excelling in the Power of the Keys than the other Apostles: And in his 6th Tract. on St. Matt. he says, That there was a great difference betwixt that which was said to Peter, and what spoken to the Rest: Frst, He confesses him to have re∣ceiv'd the Keys, not as the other Apostles did, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 only of one Heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but of many: Then he says, That that which Peter bound and loosed was ratify'd not in one Heaven only, but in all the Hea∣vens. But says he, What the other Apostles did bind and loose is confirm'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Not in the Heavens, as what Peter did, but in Heaven, their Power not extending so far as Peters did, so as to bind and loose in all the Heavens, concluding him

to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Melior ligator; and he most happy who is loosed by him. It is most evident from hence, that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent, and to sur∣mount the rest in the Power of the Keys, tho' Maldonate thinks he did injure this his true and solid Opinion by a too subtle way of proving it, by making use of Heaven and Heaven's.

Hilarius, who calls the other Apostles Janitores Caeli, acknowledging them to have the Keys, calls Peter by way of transcendency, O Beatus Caeli Janitor: He likewise affirms him advanc'd above the Rest, Quia solus respondet caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae con∣fessione locum promeruit. And 'tis observable out of him, that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have receiv'd the Keys ob fidei suae meritum, he asserts in his Comments on Matt. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse: Thus he ha∣ving a greater portion of Faith, consequently had a larger Power in the Keys, that being the reason why he recev'd them.

As for St. Ambrose, I find him to attribue the Keys to Peter as a Character to distinguish him from the Rest, con∣fessing him to excel them therein in his Serm. 66. Cum omnes Apostoli parem gratiam apud Dominum sanctitatis obtineant, nescio quo facto Petrus & Paulus videntur prae caeteris pe∣culiari quadam in Salvatore fidei virtute praecellere, quod quidem ex ipsius Domini judicio possumus approbare nam; Petro sicut bono dispensatori Clavem Regni Caelestis dedit. Here he confesses them to be all equal in Sanctity, but dif∣ferenc'd in the Keys.

In his Lib. 10. Cap. 22. Lucae, he says, Tollit ergo Petrus aurem, quare Petrus? quia ipse est qui accepit Claves Regni Caelorum. Here he asks a Question, why Peter of all the Twelve cut off Malchas's Ear, because, says he, it was he, who receiv'd the Keys; now had he thought the other

equal in the Keys with him, this had been no Reason. In the 24th Chap. of the same Book, he says much to the same effect, where speaking of Peter, Constanter qui po∣sterior venerat primus ingreditur, quasi, qui Claves. Regni Coelorum, ut aliis aperiret, acceperat: In his Lib. 8. Cap. 9. Lucae, he mentions the Keys as his peculiar Characteristical Note and Badge, Petrus ascendit qui Claves Regni Caelo∣rum accepit, Johannes cui committitur Mater Domini, Jaco∣bus qui primus Sacerdotale solium ascendit.

Cyril Catech. 6. makes it Peters Glory to have the Keys, as it was St. Paul's to be snatch'd up to the Third Heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

St. Chrysost. in his 21 Hom. Corinth. acknowledge him principally entrusted with them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

For it was not such a wonderful thing to shew the other Apostles doing this, as to demonstrate their Prince who was entrusted with the Keys doing it.

St. Basil acknowledges him Supereminent hererein, De Judicio Dei; where speaking of him, he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He that was prefer'd before all the rest of the Disciples, who only ob∣tain'd a more noble Testimony, and proclaim'd Blessed, who was entrusted with the Keys of the Kingdom.

St. Cyprian in his Epist. to Jubain. do's either acknow∣ledge him to have receiv'd them solely, or eminently, a∣bove the Rest; Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui Claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata.

Bede Hom. in Matt. 16. confesses he exceeded them in the Keys as he did in love, Qui Regnum Caelorum majori dilectione prae caeteris confessus est, merito, prae caeteris col∣latis Regni Caelestis Clavibus donatus est.

As for St. Austin, I do acknowledge, that he affirms the Keys to be given to the Church, when they were given to St. Peter; and this is by Protestant Writers alledg'd as highly injurious to his Supremacy, tho' I cannot see wherein 'tis prejudicial to him, or defringes the least Ray of Claritude from his Glory, but rather guilds it with more radiant lustre, if rightly understood: For if you con∣sult his Writings, you will find that the reason which mov'd him to affirm this, was, because Peter represented the Church; now in what quality he represented it, he dis∣covers himself in his Tract ult. in Johan. Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostlus propter Apostolatûs sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam: And in Psal. 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit: And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini, B. Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatûs Principatum tenens. Here he declares his Representation of the Church to be by vertue of his Principacy and Prin∣cipacy: So he may be said to represent it, not in a Para∣bolical Sense as its Substitute or Vicar, but Historically and Really, as its Governor and Primate, and consequent∣ly he receiv'd the Keys as one that had right and relation a parte rei, not as an Atturney who takes possession for another, but as a Prince receives the Keys of a City for himself, tho' for the benefit of his Nation. He receiv'd them immediately: The Church by him, as Tertul. af∣firms in Scorp. Memento Claves Coeli hic Dominum Petro & per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse. Dr. Stapleton says, That Peter receiv'd them formalitèr for himself, but finalitèr for the benefit of the Church, for the Power of the Keys was not limited to his Person, but derivable to the Go∣vernors of the Church, even to the consummation of the World.

One thing I shall add more, which tends much to Pe∣ters

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 Eccle∣siae 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 pri∣mo & 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In the Person of their Prince. 'Tis 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 on∣ly, to preserve Unity, Stant tot innocentes &, peccator accipit Claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur; but then he ac∣knowledges 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 at∣tribute an equality of Power in the Keys to the rest of the Apostles with Peter, by vertue of that place, is evi∣dent by their Expounding it of Fraternal Correption, gi∣ving by these words to the injur'd party Power of bind∣ing 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 pre∣sently 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 near∣est 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 com∣mon both to Peter and those that did admonish their Bro∣thers: 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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 Savi∣or, 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 compe∣tent 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 reli∣quisse. And accordingly, Greg. Nyss. de Cast. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He gave to the Bishops the Key of Caelestial Honors, per Pe∣trum. 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 reci∣pit. 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 Cir∣cumscrib'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, Lib. 4. Dist. 18. And now it will seem a very fit time for you to look about you, for your Case is very dubious, and I must confess, I cannot see what Title you have to the Keys. You, who who are no Priest of the Catholick Church, but only a Minister of a Particular one, fallen off from her. You, who Write and Preach against Catholick Doctrin and Uni∣ty in Justification of your Schismatical Defection. You, who have so much distended your Nerves, in injuring not only Peter, whom our Savior entrusted with the Keys, but likewise in abusing his Successors who possess them af∣ter him. You, who by Excommunication are sever'd from the Body of the Catholick Church, as Sarmentum & Ramale emortuum, how you should have them, I can∣not imagin: And I may ask you, as Optatus did the Do∣natists, Lib. 2. Cont. Parm. Ʋnde est quod Claves Regni vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus & audaciis militatis. St. Cyprian

will tell you in his Epist. 73. Foris nec ligari aliquid posse, nec solvi: And in his 6th. Epistle, Dicimus omnes omnino. Haereticos atque Schismaticos, nihil habere potestatis ac juris: But on the other side Theophyl. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; They have power to loose and bind who are honor'd with Episcopal Grace according to Peter. But before I quit this Point I shall very seriously recommend to you the Saying of St. Hierom in his Comments on Matt. 16. where speaking of the Power of the Keys, he acknowledges Pe∣ter to have receiv'd it, Speciatim, especially, particularly, Quod quicunque ab unitate fidei & Societate Ecclesiae se sepa∣raverit, nec a peccatis solvi, nec Caelum possit ingredi. By this you may apprehend your deplorable condition, being separated from the Unity of the Catholick Faith, and from the Society of the Catholick Church. Be so indul∣gent to your self, as not to use any Sophistry in gulling your self. Permit this Saying of St. Hierom not to float like a Buoy on the Surface of your Brain, but to subside to your interior and deepest consideration. Be so kind like∣wise to your Flock, whose Opinion of your Learning and Orthodoxy has made them ductile to your Guidance, and recipient of your Impresses, as to impose no more false Tenets on their obvious credulity. 'Tis your Duty to instill into them saving Truths, and not to infect them with pernicious Doctrin. Pliny makes mention of a Poi∣sonous Fountain in Arabia, where the Shepherds pay the price of the Sheep that drink thereof and perish; what punishment would that Shepherd deserve, that should poi∣son his Flock himself? and how far more he, who having, the care of Rational Sheep committed to him, should in lieu of feeding them with the sincere Milk, taint them with destructive Principles? You know very well how often you have preach'd over those Papers you sent me,

and how, unsuspectedly they were imbib'd by your gree∣dy Auditory. Having now laid open those many Er∣rors contain'd in them, you would shew your self an in∣genuous Person if you would uncurtain to them those many falshoods you have vented under the fallacious Man∣tle of sound Truths; By such candid an Action, as by a piacular Victim, you might efface that guilt you have contracted by your slanderous reviling the Catholick Church, and injurious Representations of her Doctrins; I cannot imagin, but that you must needs be conscious to your self of your great miscarriages herein, and that a Person of your Reading must know better things, and can teach too, if you please; but whether a long Habit or Interest retards you herein, i'll not pretend to define. I shall only tell you what the Shepherds in Hesiods Theogo∣nia say of themselves, and so conclude this Point, leaving it to you to make Application;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Lies that resemble Truth we know to teach, And if we please, the ancient Faith can preach.

CHAP. IV. Of St. Peter's being call'd Satan: And of his De∣nial.

IT will not now seem incongruous to say something of Christs calling St. Peter Satan, not long after he had told him that he would build his Church on him, and

had promis'd him the Keys: For this I find objected by se∣veral, as if by calling him so, Christ had evacuated what he promis'd him before. But it is to be consider'd, that this happen'd betwixt the time of the Promise and Per∣formance which was not exhibited till after Christs Re∣surrection. St. Hierom on his Comments on Matt. 16. seems with this solution to satisfie the Objection, Prudens lector inquirat quomodo post tantam beatitudinem, &c. nunc audiat. Vade retro me Satana; aut quae sit tam repen∣tina conversio, ut post tanta praemia Satanas appelletur. Sed si consideret qui hoc quaerit, Petro illam beatitudinem, pote∣statem, & aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro pro∣missam, non in praesenti datam intelliget, Aedificabo, inquit, super te Ecclesiam meam, & Portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, & dabo tibi Claves Regni Coelorum, omnia de futuro, quae si statim dedisset ei, nunquam in eo pravae con∣fessionis error invenisset locum. And accordingly Theophyl. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; The word Dabo signifies the time to come, to wit, after his Resur∣rection. But if that for which he is check'd be well in∣spected, you will find two things which much extenuate his fault; the one is his great Love and Tenderness to Christ, declar'd in these words, Propitius esto tibi Domi∣ne; the other is his ignorance of Christs design in com∣ing into the World. Now he is called Satan, not as if he willingly or malitiously did go about to hinder the Sal∣vation of Mankind, but because he out of ignorance of Gods Eternal Decree, gave Christ that Advice of favour∣ing himself, which had it been follow'd, would have ob∣structed our Redemption which was design'd us by the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. St. Austin on his 49th Tract. Johan. do's acquit him of any Crime herein, Nec Petro tamen humana ignorantia proficit ad crimen, non enim ei Pater adhuc omne passionis Mysterium revela∣verat,

voluerunt consilium dare Domino, ne moriretur qui ve∣nerat mori, ne ipsi morerentur.

The next thing of this nature which I shall insist on, is, his Denyal, which by several is highly exaggerated, as if all his Dignities had thereby been forfeited and lost; but in this his fault, it is likewise to be consider'd, that it was committed before his installment in his Supreme Power, which was not solemniz'd till Christ return'd Victorious from the Grave. It was before he was virtute indutus ex alto; it was before he had receiv'd the Holy Ghost by Christs Insufflation, Timore Petrus ter negavit, nondum enim acceperat Spiritum Sanctum; accepto postea Spiritu Sancto cum fiduciâ caepit praedicare; qui ad vocem ancillae ter negaverat, accepto Spiritu Sancto inter flagella Principum confessus est quem negaverat, says St. Ambrose, Psal. 90.

The Fathers alledge several Reasons why God permitted this Great Apostle to commit this Offence. The first is, that he might be propos'd to us as a pattern not to despair when we fall into any Sin; this is Theophyl. Sense of it on Luke 22. The Second is, That he might be a happy Ex∣ample unto us of not persevering in our Sins, but by a speedy Repentance to lament, detest and forsake them. The Third is mention'd by St. Austin, Ideo B. Petrum paululum subdeseruit, ut in illo totum humanum genus posset agnoscere nihil se sine gratiâ Dei praevalere. But the pro∣per and adequate Reason is, because Christ designing him to be the Supreme Ruler of the Church, whom he did purpose to entrust with the Keys (by which he gave him full Power to absolve or retain Sins) that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor Penitent Sinners in absolving them, as Christ had mercifully forgiven him. And this is clearly St. Austin's Sense of it in Serm. 124. de Temp. Ʋt Ecclesiae Rectori futuro ignoscendi peccatoribus

quaedam regula poneretur: And in the same place, Divinae Providentiae secretum ita temperavit atque permisit, ut pri∣mus ipse laberetur ac rueret in peccatum, quo ergo peccantes duriorem sententiam proprii casus intuitu temperaret. For Peter was thought to be by nature very severe and rigid; and lest he should be too strict a Censor of Human Frail∣ties, God suffered him to fall into this Sin, that by re∣flecting on his own Offence he might be more gentle and indulgent to other Transgressors, Ʋt in Clavibus esset fi∣delis Janitor, in sententiis clementissimus Dispensator; erat enim reverâ Petrus paulo durior & severus, says the same Author. This is likewise St. Chrysostom's Opinion of it, in Petrum & Eliam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He was per∣mitted to Sin, that he, as being without Sin might not be rigid and averse to pardon: He who was entrusted with the Church, the Pillar of the Churches, the Haven of Faith, even Peter the Master of the World, was suffered to trespass, that this Man's being permitted to Sin, might become an Argument of favor to others.

St. Austin in his Serm. 124. de Temp. is pleas'd to call this a small fault in him, Exiguae culpae permittitur sub∣jacere tantus Apostolus, &c. Not but that the Offence was foul enough, but because it was of so short a continuance, he immediately recovering himself by a sincere Repen∣tance. It was a short Eclipse, a Trip, rather than a Fall; a Verbal, rather than a Real; a Labial, rather than a Mental Abnegation, In Domini passione titubat Petrus Ser∣mone non Mente. His Tongue had no sooner disown'd him, but his Heart protesting against it, proclaim'd him with penitential Tears, Voce visus est denegare, lachrymis

fatebatur, says St. Ambrose. And if the Devil, as Theo∣phyl. affirms, did in this storm blow off some of his Leafs, the Root was sound and vivid. Now if the Carriage of the other Disciples be well inspected, I much question whether they will be found in this juncture truer to our Savior than he: For if he did deny him, and Judas did betray him, how honourably the rest did behave them∣selves, Theophyl. will tell you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The rest fled for't: And this Action of theirs was not on∣ly a disowning of him, but a sign of a fearful, distrustful temper. Peter only of the Disciples had the Heart to follow him, and expose himself to danger. St. John did indeed accompany him, but this was not out of pure Va∣lor and Gallantry as Peter did, for St. John run no Rischie herein, he relying on the High Priests acquaintance for his safeguard and protection: And this was well observ'd by Theophyl. who says, he did not follow Christ as (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a Disciple, but as an Acquaintance of the High Priest. But if we consider the dirity of that dreadful time, when he deny'd his Master, it will much lessen his fault; it was when the Power of Darkness rul'd with its Black Scepter; It was when the Sun was Obtenebrated, the World shak'd with unusual Tremours, and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder; then it was when the destin'd Rock of the Church was mov'd. So I shall not (as some Petulant and Sawcy Pens have done) exprobrate this Offence to him, but endeavour to imitate him as an incomparable pattern of a speedy Penitent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For he even in his failures is profitable to us, by his hasty Tears, abolishing his Offence, and being shaken for a little time, he became the Foundation of the Faith∣ful for ever. Now that after his fall, he was not only

restor'd to his former Dignities, but advanc'd to a high∣er Degree, I shall prove when I come to treat of his Commission.

CHAP. V. The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas. Of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor. Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission? Why St. Peter was sorry for Christs thrice asking him. The Reason of the trine Interrogation. That the foregoing words were spoken immedi∣ately to St. Peter only.

HAving thus travelled through all these several Stages, I am at length arriv'd to Pasce Oves meas; which words I find to be strongly urg'd by Catholick Writers, in defence of Peters Supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction; and impugn'd by Protestant Authors with all their Force and Armory, as being most Emphatical for the establishment of his Ecclesiastick Praefecture, Nullo in loco adeo aperte vidtur soli Petro totius Ecclesiae cura committi atque ubi ei dicitur, Pasce Oves meas, says the Archbishop Spalato. Hic est ille unicus locus quo Petri Papatus nititur. Aut hic Petro Papatus, aut nusquam datur, was Dr. Whitakers Sense of this place. These words being confessedly thus momentous, I shall expend some Oyl and Pains in giving them a due discussion; for this must be done examinately not cursorily, according to what Maldonate affirms, Lo∣cus

est gravis, & in quo paulo altius figere pedem oportet. It shall therefore now be my province to make a strict revision of what I wrote on this place, and maturely to poize what you return'd me in opposition thereto; this I shall perform, not only for your Answer, but for my own satisfaction: For I can with a Serene and Unclouded Con∣science affirm, that I embrac'd the Catholick Faith, not by the persuasion of any Temporal or Mundan Interest, nor by the insidious enticements of any Persons what∣soever, as you have figur'd to your self; but as attracted thereto purely by the Alliciency and Magnetism of Truth; and you shall find me correspondently to maintain none of my Tenets, either with Obstinacy or with Unclassical Authors, but by approv'd uncontested Authority: You have not now to do with a Pertinacious, Undisciplin'd Fa∣natick, but with a Candidate of Literature, a Votary of An∣tiquity; if you can prove, that I go contrariant to her, stemming her Sacred Current, I shall acknowledge my Er∣ror, and sing my Palinode upon your convincing me: But notwithstanding this my pliant and yielding inclination, you shall find me severe enough to such as endeavour by delusory Impostures to obtrude their Smoke on me, of∣fering Fallacies wash'd with Chymical Tinctures, such Persons I have just reason to shun and abhor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now how sincere you have dealt by me in Mat∣ters of Religion will be obvious to the dimmest Eye, when I shall have ungilt your Varnish, unmask'd your specious Artifices, detected your Wiles and Doubles, then it will be discernible whether you have endeavour'd to reduce me to the right Opinion, or seduce me into Erroneous Prin∣ciples.

The first thing you attack is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I affirm'd to signifie Regere & gubernare, as well as Pascere: To this you make no other Reply than this; but

aliter pascit Rex, aliter Episcopus. This seem'd to me a meer evasive sleight, and I must acknowledge my want of Augury to Divine what you mean by the word Rex, for I never ascrib'd any Royalty or Monarchy to Peter, but what was meerly Spiritual: If this then be all you have to say against 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it amounts to no more than a Greek Expletive Particle which signifies nothing; it remains then that it denotes to Rule as well as to Feed; and if you think I did not sufficiently prove it in my first Papers, I shall here give you full satisfaction. St. Austin. Tract. 123. in Johan. gives a clear Gloss on O∣ves pascendas, id est, says he, docendas regendasque. St. Ambrose Lib. 10. Cap. 24. on St. Luke, speaking of Peter, Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret: And Theophylact, John 21. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now besides these Testimonies, Reason will carry it on my side, for to this very Intention our Savior chang'd the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which implies not all the Functions of Pastoral Authority, but only what apper∣tain to feed, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies both to Feed and to Rule; this was observ'd by Erasmus in his Notes on this place. Bis dixit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Pasce sive ale, semel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. rege: Thus the word is commonly us'd, and it being apply'd to Reasonable Creatures, it imports Rule and Government: For this cause Kings are called Pastores, as in Isaia 44. Qui dico Cyro pastor meus es: And accordingly the Five Tribes spoke to David, Dixit Dominus ad te, tu pasces populum meum Israel, & tu eris Dux super Israel. Thus the Emperor Tiberius in Suetonius compares himself to a Shepherd, and his Sub∣jects to Sheep, Praesidibus onerandas tributo provincias suadentibus rescripsit, Boni Pastoris esse tondere pecus non deglubere, which Dion renders thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato in his 4th

Book de Repub. calls the Magistrates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Homer calls Agamemnon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Hesiod likewise in his Theog. calls Jason so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hence Cyril Glaphyr, Lib. 1. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'Tis usual with the Di∣vine Writ, and with the Wise Men of Greece to call the Governors of Nations, Cities or People, Shepherds of the People. Xenophon says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Actions of a good Shepherd and a good King are nigh related. And St. Basil. Homil. de Mar. Mam. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; The Pastoral and Regal Art are Sisters, differing only in this, the one is entrusted with the Government of Irrational, the other of Rational Creatures. These Authorities I look on to be a sufficient Guard to secure what I wrote on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Next you affirm, That the other Apostles had Commissi∣on to Feed and Rule the whole Flock as much as Peter. This your Assertion I cannot assent to; yet I will grant, that the other Apostles were Capita & Pastores totius Mundi. Having most full and ample Power to found Churches every where, to Convert, Baptize and Preach to every Creature; and that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All in Common entrusted with the world; the whole Universe being their Diocess. Yet notwithstand∣ing all this, they did not equalize Peter: for he besides his equal share with the rest in that General Commission to teach all Nations, given to him jointly with them, had a particular Commission apart solely to himself, in which the rest were no immediate sharers, not only to strengthen and confirm, but also to feed and govern the rest, they being included in the words Oves meas, and consequently recom∣mended

to his Pastoral Care and Regency; who by ver∣tue of these our Saviors words was created, not only chief Pastor of all other Christians, but even of the Apo∣stles themselves. He then only had Commission to feed the whole Flock of Christ, taken in a Collective Sense, as comprehending all Christians, and likewise the Apostles themselves; as I shall hereafter Illustrate.

Your following Attempt to lessen Peters Power is, by assaying to take his Commission from him; affirming Pasce Oves meas to be an Exhortation and no Commission. This Artifice I find to be made use of by several Modern Protestant Authors. Dr. Hammond says, All that can by any torture be extracted from it, is an Exhortation to a diligent discharge of that Office to which he was before Commission'd. Dr. Stillingfleet in his Part. 2. C. 7. Those words contain no particular Commission to Peter, but a more vehement Exhortation to the discharge of his Duty. Dr. Barrow in his Treatise of the Supremacy, These words are not Institutive or Collative of Power, but rather only Ad∣monitive, Exhortative to Duty. Thus they agree in their united Verdict: But the words being pronounc'd by a Lord to his Servant, Imperatively, have no Lineaments of an Exhortation, but of a Commission: And accordingly I find the Fathers (whose Sense I rather choose to follow, than such Authors) to Interpret them; looking on them as a Command, Commission, Injunction; as a great trust committed to him, as will clearly appear by the following Quotations, Mandatum de pascendis Ovibus suis unum idemque ter praecepit. August. Lib. 3. de Consens. Evang. And in the same place, Petrum ter interrogavit utrum ab illo amaretur, & ei pascendas commendavit Oves. Dominus respondenti amorem commendat agnos suos, Serm. 149. de Temp. Tan∣quam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem suscepit. In festo Cathe∣drae Petri. Cui pascendas Oves suas post Resurrectionem

Dominus commendavit. Cont. Epist. Manih. And again, Pastor est Petrus, cui pascendas Oves credidisti, ipse commen∣dasti. Interrogatur amor, imperatur labor. Festo Cathed. Petri Oves pascere jubetur, Ambr. Lib. 10. Cap. 14. Luc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chrysost. Hom. 87. Johan. He asketh thrice, and thrice commands the same things.

St. Bernard, Serm. 76. Cant. calls it in plain terms, a Commission, Non otiosè toties repetitum est, Petre amas me in Commissione Ovium: By vertue of this Mandat St. Chry∣sost. in his Comments on St. John do's acknowledge him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To have the Go∣vernment of his Brethren in his Hands: And on Acts 1. that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Entrust∣ed by Christ with the Fold: And St. Ambrose says, that he was made Pastor Dominici Gregis, by vertue of these words.

Thus you may see by the joint suffrages of the Fathers, that it was a Trust, Mandate, or Commission which was given to Peter after Dinner, it being customary with our Savior to do great things after Meals, as Maldonate ob∣serves, Res magnas post Prandium aut Coenam fecit Christus. After Supper he instituted the B. Eucharist; and now ha∣ving eaten some broil'd Fish with his Disciples, being mindful of the Promise he had made to Peter of building his Church on him, here he performs it, creating him Supreme Head and Pastor of his Church, Constituting the Church-Government Monarchical. And 'tis observable, that as in the Promise he calls Peter, Simon Barjona; so here in the Performance he calls him Simon Jona, to shew that the Performance was made to the same Identical Person to whom it was promis'd. The Promise was ushered in by an Interrogatory, so was the Performance; the Promise was made upon his egregious Faith, surpassing

that of the Rest; the Performance was exhibited upon his extraordinary Love, surmounting that of the Rest. As for the other Apostles, they before this, had their War∣rant and Authority consign'd them when our Savior breath'd on them, Commissionating them, saying, Sicut misit me Pater, &c. Euntes, Docete omnes Nationes, &c. This was their unlimited Commission, whereas the first was confin'd to the lost Sheep of Israel, the Samaritans and the Gentiles being excepted: This was the General Com∣mission given in Common to the Apostolick Colledge, in which every Apostle had an equal share. Now Peter be∣sides, and above the proportion he had in this Grant, be∣sides the Power he had jointly with the Rest, receives an Authority proper and peculiar to himself, Christ superad∣ding something apart to him above the Rest for the excel∣lency of his Faith, and prefulgency of his Love; the ulti∣mate end of which Action was to preserve Unity, not only in Church-Government, but likewise in Faith. Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem süam parem tribuat potestatem, says St. Cyprian, sicut misit me, &c. ta∣men ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipiente suâ authorita∣te disposuit. I shall conclude this Point with a Saying of Jansenius, Cum primâ apparitione Apostolis parem contulit potestatem, &c. nunc ad tollendum Schisma & ut Ecclesia una monstretur, unus omnibus praeficitur.

But now after all this, you say 'tis a sign it was an Ex∣hortation, because, Peter was sorry for its Tergemination, which he would not have been at the receipt of a Commissi∣on. This your Reason seems to me very pleasant and di∣vertive; I perceive you would have had him very debo∣nair at this his Investiture, as you would be upon obtaining a Fat and Unctious Benefice. But first, I must tell you, he had little Reason to be very chearly; for Christ had

no sooner given him his Commission, but he allay'd his Joy by foretelling him his Crucifixion. But I find you to be guilty of a wide mistake concerning the Original of his Sorrow, which I conceive to be deriv'd from Springs very distant from your Apprehensions of it; for Petrus mirabatur & cum quodam taedio audiebat quoerentem, quem nover at omnia scientem, August. de Temp. 149. Serm. Contristatus est quod saepe interrogatus est ab eo qui sciret quod interrogabat, Serm. 50. in Evang. Johan. And again, Contristatus est Petrus quod eum tertio interrogat, quasi ille qui vidit conscientiam negationis, non videbat fidem confiten∣tis. St. Ambrose glosses much to the same effect, Petrus doluit quia interrogatus est, Amas me? Quod enim mani∣festum erat, dolebat quasi incognitum quaeri, Lucae Lib. 6. 7. And on the last Chapter of Luke he says, Contristatur Pe∣trus quia tertio interrogatur, Amas me? is enim interrogatur de quo dubitatur. And on Psal. 90. enarrat. Taedio affectus Petrus, quasi dubitaret Dominus noster de amore ejus: This may suffice to satisfie you concerning the true Reason of his sorrow.

One thing I shall add more on this matter, and that is, concerning Dr. Barrow, who affirms, the words Pasce O∣ves meas, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A Renova∣tion of the Apostolate formerly granted; as if by these words he had recover'd it again after he was fallen from it by his denyal: That the words did include his restaurati∣on to his Apostleship I grant; but that they imply'd no more than that, which the Doctor would from thence in∣fer, I deny. And to make this fully understood, I will suppose some Favourite of a Prince, who had a place at Court, through some misdemeanor incurring his Masters Displeasure to lose it, and after the decurrence of some time, to be so happy as by regaining his Princes Favor to be promoted to a higher Office than before: This Favou∣rite

may be said to have acquir'd his former place, tho' in∣deed he be advanc'd above it to a higher Dignity. The same was Peters Case, who after his Fall, purchasing Christ's Favor by a speedy Repentance, was not only re∣admitted into the Society of the Twelve, but was exalted to a higher degree, so as to become the Prince and Pastor of that Company. This is the Real Sense of the Fathers herein, Post lacrymas Pastor assumptus est, & alios regen∣dos accipit, qui seipsum prius non regerat, says St. Ambrose de Paenitentia Petri. And Enarrat. Psa. 43. Petrus Eccle∣siae praeponitur, postquam tentatus à Diabolo est. Majorem gratiam reperit quam amisit, tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem accipit, says St. Austin Fest. Cath. Petri. And Ar∣nobius on Psal. 138. says, Major gradus redditur ploranti quam aufertur neganti. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Lib. 6 contra Judaeos. Peter after that heinous de∣nial of his, because he presently bethought himself of his Sin, and wept bitterly, he so wash'd away that Sin, as to become the Prince of the Apostles, and to have the whole World deliver'd into his Hands.

The last thing you take notice of on this Matter, is, That I said Pasce Oves meas was spoken to Peter thrice up∣on his trine Negation; but you suppose I will not say he merited it for his threefold denial: This supposition of yours might very well have been omitted as unnecessary; and I may very well wave it, as undeserving any notice should be taken of it; what I said was this, That our Sa∣vior asked Peter thrice, suitable to his trine denial (as St. Austin observ'd, Additur trinae negationi trina confessio) whether he lov'd him, &c. This seems not at all amiss, or obnoxious to any exception, but you had a mind to

carp at every thing. Now tho' such parvitudes as these are not worth the defending, yet because you Cavil at them I shall not desert them as undefensible; for I believe I can produce better Authority to maintain them than you can to impugn them, Ter me negasti timendo: Ter me confitere amando, Ambros. Psal. 90. Enarrat. And in his Apol. David. Cap. 9. Ʋt trinae lapsum negationis professio Charitatis toties repetita deleret. St. Austin, Serm. 50. Secund. Johan. Ʋt trinâ confessione amoris deleret trinum peccatum negationis. Theophyl. on John 21. gives two Reasons of our Saviors asking thrice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Both mani∣festing what a great care he took of the Faithful, and with∣all, by a trine Interrogation and Confession he cures his trine Negation.

The next that encounters my view, is your Quotation out of St. Austin, by which I perceive, that the drift and scope of your design is to prove the words Pasce Oves me∣as, to be spoken to the Rest as well as to Peter: This is the White at which you level; the words are these, Cum illi dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, si amas me, pasce, &c. This is all you quote; but upon examining the place out of which these words were taken, I find the foregoing words to be these, Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ec∣clesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, huic enim Eccle∣siae Claves Regni Caelorum datae sunt, cum Petro datae sunt; & cum ei dicitur, omnibus dicitur, Pasce Oves meas; August. de Agone Christianâ. Here you are to understand, that in his Judgment Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholick Church, and that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him; namely, as to its Head, Primate and Rector, as I have already prov'd out of his Writings: In this only Sense I have al∣ready

fully prov'd, that those words which were original∣ly and immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to the Rest, they being all Epitomiz'd and compriz'd in him as their Chief: In this Acceptation I grant, that Pa∣sce Oves meas, might be spoken to all the Disciples, and in no other aspect. Now this do's not at all hinder, but that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely; and this is acknowledg'd by St. Austin himself, in his Book de Pastoribus, where speaking of our Savior, Tunc ideo commendavit Oves, quia invenit Petrum; imo vero in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit; multi erant Apostoli, & uni dicitur, Pasce Oves meas. And again in the same Book, Petro dixerat, Pasce Oves meas: quid ergo facie∣mus? Cum Petro commendantur Oves; non ibi dixit Dominus, Ego pascam Oves meas, non tu, sed Petre, Amas me? Pasce Oves meas. And again, Sic certe a Domino ad Beatum Petrum dicitur, Petre, Amas me? & ille, tu scis, Domine, quia amo te. Et cum tertio fuisset interrogatus, & trinâ re∣sponsione fuisset subsecutus, repetitum est a Domino tertiò, Pasce Oves meas.

Your following attempt is to prove those words to be spoken to all Pastors as well as to Peter, by your Saying cited out of St. Basil, Consequenter omnibus Pastoribus dictum est, &c. But this your Quotation do's you no Ser∣vice at all, it amounting to no more than what I frankly grant; for I do, as well as you, believe the words to be consequently derivatively, extensively spoken to every Pastor, all being Figured and Represented in the Supreme Pastor St. Peter, as Austin avouches, in festo Petri & Pauli. In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorum, sed bono∣rum. Now the most inferior Pastor is as really one as a Bishop, tho' his Sheep be not so numerous, nor his Fold so large; and I grant, that these words were in a subordi∣nate secondary Sense, spoken not only to the other Apostles,

but to all lawful Pastors; for Peter, tho' he were the Chief, was not the Sole Pastor, Pastor bonus Christus, quid Petrus? Nonne Pastor bonus? Quid Paulus, quid caeteri Apo∣stoli, quid Beati Episcopi, Martyres, quid Sanctus Cyprianus? nonne omnes Pastores boni, non mercenarii? as St. August. af∣firms in his 50th Serm. Evang. Johan. Neither did he feed the Flock alone, but had the Apostles his Coadjutors, and Compresbyters, whom he exhorts to feed the Flock, not the Universal, but the Particular one, Pascite gregem qui in vobis, the Prerogative of feeding the Universal Church, including both the Apostles and other Christians, being delegated to Peter only, as Supreme Pastor of the Church; I therefore affirm, that the words were princi∣pally, immediately, and initially spoken to him alone; but I acknowledge likewise, that in a Proportion'd Ade∣quate Sense, In quodam Modo, they suit and quadrate with all true Pastors: For as Salmeron affirms, Quod summo Pastori dicitur, id suo modo & proportione servatâ, aliis minoribus Pastoribus dictum est; Because they who are called as Fellow-Labourers into part of the Pastoral Functi∣on and Solicitude, are to exscribe and imitate the Form that Peter used in Feeding, Loving, Cherishing, and De∣fending his Flock. But I shall now come to your Quota∣tion out of St. Basil, which I found to be in his Book de Vita solit. Cap. 23. and upon my examining it, taking in those words which were Introductive to it, I discover'd it to be the most destructive and fatal thing to your pur∣pose, that was imaginable; the previous words which you suppress'd, making wholly against you; they are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For a Governor is nothing else but one that represents the person

of our Savior; and this we are taught by Christ, constitut∣ing Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself, for he says, Peter, do yon love me more than these? Feed my Sheep. Here St. Basil do's remarkably affirm what I go about to prove; namely, That Christ created Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself by vertue of these words. But what shall I think of your concealing these Lines? Cer∣tainly the Action was unworthy and disingenuous; espe∣cially in you, who pretend so much to Truth and Honest dealings; and you could herein have no Reverence for the Author, or Kindness for me, whom by such deeds you cannot pretend to instruct, but impose on. I do not won∣der to see the Fathers so copiously quoted by you, now I see 'tis your practice to Cull out here and there a Line, without perpending its relation, either to the foregoing or following Matter, Ends without Beginnings, Begin∣nings without Ends. Interpretes falsi extrema ponunt, & superiora praetereunt, partis immemores & partem subdolè comprimentes, says St. Cyprian, De unitate. And St. Chry∣sost. to the same effect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 pal∣liation 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, endea∣vour'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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; After Christ had concluded his Dinner, he delivered into the Hands of Peter the Govern∣ment of all the Sheep, he deliver'd them to this Man, not to any other. By these Quotations 'tis 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, ha∣ving given them their Commission before. Theophyl. gives two Reasons of this; the main and principal was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Because he was the Prince and Mouth of the Apostolick Order. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Then to shew him he ought to be of good courage, as having the Sin of his de∣nial expugn'd,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Ʋniversal Ju∣risdiction. 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 Con∣text highly favours my Opinion, perspicuously evi∣dencing 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 Compari∣son 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 Ca∣vils; Do but weigh in just Ballances the Reason why our Savior said these words to him, and you will find it dis∣cordant 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 ver∣tue 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 particu∣lar 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 Deprava∣tions, 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 Commissi∣on; 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 Lo∣ver. This Explication of the place is facil, natural, and openly lies upon the Surface of the words, and is agree∣able to the Sense of the Fathers.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If you love me preside over your Brethren. St. August. de Temp. Serm. 149. Dom. Jesus respondenti amo∣rem, 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. Po∣stremo, suas Oves Petro se amanti, eumque amorem ter con∣sitenti 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 Ad∣vancement 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 ad∣mit the Rest to be equal sharers with him in this Pastoral Commission, for the Authority of feeding, being the re∣compence of his Love, he loving more than the Rest, ex∣ceeded them in that Commission; it being most unrea∣sonable 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 Um∣pirage: 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, Lib. 10. Cap. 14. in Lucam: Dixit ei Jesus, Pasce Agnos meos: Bene con∣scius sui non ad tempus assumptum, sed jamjudum Deo cognitum, Petrus testificatur affectum: quis est enim alius

qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? & ideo quia solus pro∣fitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur; major enim omni∣bus Charitas. Here St. Ambrose clearly acknowledges, that the Reason of his Prelation before the Rest, was, be∣cause he lov'd more than they; and that he did so, is the Sense of other Fathers as well as his. Hence Chrysost. calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Raging, Ardent, Mad Lover of Christ. And in his Hom. 1. de Paenitentia, he says, That he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, More love for Christ than all the Disciples besides. Nazianzen calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A greater Lover of his Lord, than the other Apostles. St. Hierom on Matt. 16. Nimii ardoris, amorisque quam maximi fuit Petrus in Salvatorem. St. Austin Tract. 124. John. Sciebat Dominus non solùm quod diligeret verùm etiam quod plus illis illum deligeret. And in the same Tract, Quod Petrus plus aliis dilexit Chri∣stum possunt multa documenta proferri.

This excessive love towards his Lord, made him gene∣rous, and forward in his Promises and Protestations to him; and likewise adventurous in exposing his life for him. When Christ was seiz'd on by Judas's Company, he only drew and fought for him: And after his Resur∣rection he could not conceal the Ardour of his Affection, nor the Gallantry of his Spirit, he being the only Person (all the Rest continuing abroad) that upon the first In∣telligence of Christs appearance on the Shore, impatient of the dull progress of the becalm'd Vessel, hastning to his Lord, threw himself into the Sea. And altho' St. John was more quicksighted, and saw Christ first; St. Peter was more ardent, and arriv'd to him first, As Nazianz. af∣firms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Mr. Cartwright knowing Peter's surpassing Love to∣wards Christ to be very considerable, and that it would make a great inclination of the Ballance to his advantage, had a mind to elude it, by reviving an old Cheat which was extant in St. Augustin's days. We may deny (says he) that the Comparison here is made between the Love of Peter, and the Love of the Rest; but between the Love he bare to Christ, above that he had to his Ship, Nets, and his present Friends: This St. Austin looks on as a cunning Interpretation, Vafre diligis me plus his, i. e. plusquam hi diligunt me; sed diligis me plus his, i. e. plusquam hos diligis; But de Sanctis Petro & Paulo, he discovers the Forgery herein, non simpliciter dixerat Dominus, di∣ligis me; sed addiderat, plus his diligis me, id est, plus me diligis quam isti.

The next thing that the Palate of your Fancy seems to disrelish, is my affirming Peter by vertue of these words Pasce Oves meas, to have receiv'd Authority over the whole World, and over the Apostles themselves: All that you alledge in opposition thereto, is this, But Christ said, Pasce Oves meas, not tuas, and Pasce Oves, not Pastores; likewise confirma Fratres is not confirma Filios or Subditos. By these ingenious and subtile distinctions, you fancy to have overthrown what I wrote on this matter; but to me those distinctions seem to be only whiffling and versatile. Could any Vafrous Proteus transmute himself into more varieties of shapes only to make an Evasion? But pray, now you have done shuf∣fling, give me leave to cut, the Expression is proper e∣nough, for the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in St. Timothy, which is translated to divide right, signifies properly to cut right. I do believe, and assert, that the words Oves meas, do impale and infold all Christs Sheep in general, as well the Apostles as other Christians, all were recom∣mended

and deliver'd over to Peter's care and prefecture; the words being deliver'd indefinitely, in an unlimited manner; there being no Exception, Restriction, or Di∣stinction: And herein I proceed according to the Rule of St. Basil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That which is indefinite compre hends all: This was likewise St. Ber∣nards Sense, Lib. 2. de Conf. ad. Eugenium, Si me amas, Petre, Pasce Oves meas, inquit: quas, illius vel illius popu∣los Civitatis, aut Regionis, aut certe Regni? Oves meas inquit: cui non planum non designasse aliquas, sed assignasse omnes? Nihil excipitur, ubi nihil distinguitur. Thus you see according to his Opinion, Peters Power was not confin'd within the limited Tropicks of any particular Kingdom or Regions; but without any Boundary or Horison to terminate it, without any Shores or Fron∣tires to restrain it, was stretch'd and extended over the vast Universe. This I shall likewise prove out of St. Chrysost. and Theophyl. for St. Bernard will be excepted against, as living in the time of Antichrists chief exaltation, and therefore not to be regarded, says Dr. Fulk; or as Dr. Whitaker has it, he lived in those times, quando Papatûs splendore, acies perstringebatur animorum.

St. Chrysost. Hom. 87. in Johan says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Christ foretold St. Peter great things, and deliver'd the World into his Hands. This his Oecumenical Jurisdiction he acknowledges, Hom. 1. de Paenit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Christ deliver'd into his Hands the Govern∣ment of the Oecumenical Church. And on the 16th of St. Matt. he confesses him to preside, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Every where in the World. Hence he calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Master of the Ʋni∣verse. Theophyl. likewise in his Comments on Johan 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Christ delivers to Peter the Government of the Sheep of all the World. And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Follow me, delivering into your Hands the whole World. I shall add no more Testimonies now on this Point, intending to prosecute it further in my Second Part.

I am oblig'd now to take some small Cognisance of your several nice Distinctions, your first was, that Christ said, Oves meas not tuas. I wish you had explain'd what you meant by this Criticism, that I might have shap'd a pertinent Reply, which otherwise it may be, I shall not. I find the Archbishop Spalato to make a cunning Inter∣pretation on Oves meas, i. e. says he, Israelitas, because Christ declar'd, he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of Israel; and because St. Paul calls Christ Minister Circum∣cisionis, by this Gloss he design'd to rob Peter of the Prefecture of the Gentiles, limiting him to the Jews, which Error I shall confute in my Second Part. St. Au∣stin in his Serm. 123. in Johan. says thus, Si me diligis, non te pascere cogita, sed Oves meas: Et sicut Oves meas, non sicut tuas: Gloriam meam in eis quaere, non tuam: Lucra mea, non tua: Dominium meum, non tuum. Here St. Au∣stin explains what he meant by his Distinction; what you design'd by it to me is wrapt up in Clouds, unless you fan∣cy that our Savior delivering his Sheep into the Hands of Peter, lost his propriety in them: But I fancy Christ no more lost his Claim and Interest in his Sheep, when he recommended them to Peters Government, than a King loses his Royalty and Jurisdiction in those Subjects, over whom he constitutes a Viceroy: For neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles set up for themselves: Neither did they lay any other Foundation but Christ, and their uni∣ted endeavours were to make Men Christanos, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Epiphanius calls them. You may then,

now understand Peters Jurisdiction to be derivative from, and subordinate to our Savior, and tho' in respect to the other Apostles and Christians whatsoever, he was chief Pastor, yet in relation to Christ (who is the only Supreme Independent Pastor) he is but a Sheep; yet the Noblest, most Honourable, and Excellent of the Flock, as St. Chrysost. says, in Apost. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as such a Sheep he is govern'd and fed by Christ. This St. Austin Serm. 62. Johan. 2. af∣firms, Commendabat Christus Petro agnos suos pascendos, qui pascebat & Petrum. Yet it do's not at all follow, but that Peter, after Christ's relinquishing this World, was the Pastor of all Christ's Sheep, but by Authority from him, and as dependant of him; and herein you may see St. Austin's Judgment in his Book de Pastoribus, Nam & ipsum Petrum, cui commendabat Oves suas, quasi alter alteri, unum secum facere volebat, ut sic ei Oves commendaret, ut sit ille Caput, ille figuram Corporis por∣taret, id est, Ecclesiae. And again, in the same Book, Non ibi dixit Dominus, Ego pascam Oves meas; non tu, sed Petre, amas me? Pasce Oves meas. Here Christ is said not to feed his Flock (that is visibly) but Peter.

Your other Criticism is, that Christ said, Pasce Oves. not Pastores; but the difficulty of this Distinction, may be remov'd with great facility, for 'tis very easie to ex∣plain how Pastors may be fed, even to the lowest Capa∣city, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But that it may be more intelligible, I will make it out to you by this Simile. You who are a Mi∣nister of such a Parish, in relation to your Flock and Pa∣rishioners are a Pastor; and they are your Sheep, re∣ceiving from you Spiritual Food and Pasture: But you, on the other side (this Janus having a bifront aspect) in relation to your Bishop, are a Sheep, and he has Power

to exercise his Pastoral Government over you when he sees occasion: And to rise to an higher Ela, a Bishop, Archbishop, or Primate are Pastors, in consideration of those Sheep which are in subjection to them; but being ballanc'd with a Patriarch, they are Sheep themselves. Thus it was with the Apostles; they in reflection to the whole Christian World were Pastors, Governors and Prin∣ces, but in comparison with Peter, the Head of the Apo∣stolick Senate, and Supreme Pastor immediately next to Christ, they were Sheep: And to this intent our Savior seem'd to have chang'd the words in his Commission to Peter, as St. Ambrose observes in his Lib. 10. Cap. 24. in Luc. Denique tertiò Dominus non jam diligis me, sed amas me interrogat? Et jam non agnos ut primò, quodam lacte pascendos: nec oviculas ut Secundò; sed Oves pascere ju∣betur, perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret. And the same Author, in another place says thus, Petro committi incipientes, proficientes, perfectos. Hence Euseb. Emisse∣nus Serm. De Nat. St. Johan. says, Non solùm Pastorem; sed Pastorum Pastorem eum constituit. And Arnobius on Psal. 138. calls him a Bishop of Bishops, which is equi∣pollent to a Pastor Pastorum: Ecce Apostolo paenitenti succur∣ritur qui est Episcopus Episcoporum.

The next thing I am to regard is, your Asterisk and Note on Confirma Fratres, that it was not said, Confirma Filios, or Servos, or Subditos, but Fratres. I have no de∣sign to endeavour to alter the least tittle of the Text, but shall liberally grant you your Observation: And now what will you inferr out of it, that they were therefore equal, because they were call'd Fratres? This surely must be the design of your Criticism, but I deny the Consequence; for you will find our Savior to call his Di∣sciples Fratres, as Matt. 20. 10. Nuntiate Fratribus, ut eant in Galilaeam; and speaking to Mary Magdalen, he

says, Vade ad Fratres meos, &c. I hope you will not conclude the Apostles equal with him upon this account. St. Paul in like manner calls the Corinthians Fratres in his Epistle to them. Et ego Fratres non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus. Hoc itaque dico Fratres: But not∣withstanding this Appellation, he had Spiritual Jurisdiction over them, and exercis'd it too; as appears by delivering one of them over to Hell's Jailor. And in Cor. 4. he says, Quid vultis in virgâ veniam vobis an in Cha∣ritate? This Virga was a Symbol of Power. Oecomeni∣us on the words Viri, Fratres, in the 2. Acts Apost. gives this account, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; They did not say Fratres, by way of Equality; as if by such a term they had equaliz'd themselves to them, but to shew how familiar they were with them. Now the reason why Christ spake to Peter to strengthen his Brethren, was according to Theophyl. be∣cause he look'd on him as their Prince, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Cyril ac∣cordingly on the same words, Postquam me negato plora∣veris, corrobora Fratres, cum te Principem Apostolorum de∣putavero. St. Ambrose do's clearly confess, that by ver∣tue of these words spoken to him, Christ made him their Supreme Pastor, in Psa. 43. Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus a Diabolo est, ideoque ante significat Dominus quid sit illud quod postea eum elegit gregis Dominici Pastorem; nam huic dixit, confirma Fratres tuos.

Having thus remov'd these your slender Objections with as much ease as the Wind puffed away the aged Sy∣bils disordered Leafs. I shall now hasten to conclude what I have to say more on this Subject, and to shew you how fair an Antagonist you have of me. If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep,

I will exempt them from Peter's Prefecture. This seems to me an equitable proposal: Now if they were his Sheep they were under the denomination of Oves meas, recom∣mended to Peter's Shepherdly Government. Now that which enforces me to believe that they were comprehen∣ded under those words and that Christ meant them when he said so, is, because he often calls them Sheep; I'll strike the Shepherd and the Sheep shall be scattered. My Sheep hear my Voice. Behold I send you as Sheep. And accordingly in the 10th of St. John, Christ says of himself, Ego sum Pastor bonus. Theophyl. on Mark 14. gives the reason why they are call'd Sheep, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He calls his Apostles Sheep, be∣cause they are harmless: Besides St. Chrysost. interprets Oves meas on Peter's Brethren, which were the Apostles, in his Hom. 87. on St. John, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Christ says to Peter, If you love preside〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over your Brethren. And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He delivers into his Hands the Government of his Brethren. Theophyl. says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He deliver'd into Peters Hands the Prefecture of all the Faithful. So I hope you will not exclude the Apostles from that number. Besides this, you will find the unanimous consent of the Fathers attesting Christ's whole Flock, which must necessarily enfold the other Apostles to be recommended to Peter. Thus St. Ambrose Serm. 47. Tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum gre∣gem accepit. And in his Fifth Book de Fide, he acknow∣ledges him to be the Wise Steward, whom Christ plac'd over his whole Family by vertue of Pasce Oves meas. Quisnam est fidelis servus & prudens, quem constituit Do∣minus super familiam suam, ut det illis in tempore cibum? beatus ille servus quem veniens Dominus ejus invenerit sic facientem; non vilis hic servus magnus aliquis, esse debet quis

sit iste consideremus: est Potrus, ipsius Domini electus judi∣cio qui tertiò meretur audire, Pasce Agniculos meos, Pasce Agnos meas, Pasce Oviculas meas.

St. Chrysost, Acts 1. says, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Entrusted with Christ's Flock. Epiph. in his Ancorat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; This is he who heard Christ himself say to him, feed my Lambs: This is he who was entrusted with the Flock. Hence St. Basil calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Shepherd next after Christ. St. Chrysost. in Inscript. Act. Apost. calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Head Pastor of the Apostles. But in his Second Book de Sacerd. he manifestly declares Peter by vertue of the Words Pasce Oves meas, spoken to him to be invested in Power and Authority, and to excel the rest of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

St. Austin Quaest. 73. Vet. & Novi Testam. confesses him to be constituted Head of the Apostles, to the end he might be Pastor of the Lords Flock, Ipsum constituit Caput eorum, ut Pastor esset Dominici gregis. Hence Arnobius on Psalm 138. affirms, That none of the Apostles, but Peter had the Title of Pastor from our Savior. Nul∣lus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit, solus enim Dominus Jesus Christus dicebat, Ego sum Pastor bonus: Hoc ergo nomen Sanctum, & ipsius nominis potestatem, post Resur∣rectionem Petro Paenitenti concessit. Hence you see that Peter only was honor'd by Christ, with the glorious Title of Pastor; not but that the other Apostles were She∣pherds, but because Peter was the Chief, not the Ʋnicus but Ʋniversalis, not the Solus but the Summus, the only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This most August Honor was not undeservedly conferr'd

on him, but for the constellation of his incomparable En∣dowments, for that rare triumvirate of Qualifications which adorn'd the Temple of his Breast. St. Austin gives an account of them, Bonitatis gratiam testatur Aeneas de∣bilis claudus ab infantia: probaverunt ejus severitatem Ananias & Sapphira; de scientiae ejus perfectione quis am∣bigat, qui Christum Dominum vivi Dei filium esse, de Coelo sibi revelante Patre cognovit? Quia Bonitas, ac Disciplina, Scientiaque non deerat, pascendas illi Dominus suas commen∣davit Oviculas. Hom. 4 The happy Union of these rare Embelishments made him the most resplendent amongst the Apostles, the most Prefulgent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the holy Dozen, therefore cull'd out of that Illustrious So∣ciety by the discerning Eye of Christ, as the fittest Person amongst them to be his Vicar and Supreme Pastor; to whose Pastoral Care and Vigilancy he recommended the whole Flock of his Universal Church: And this was done as St. Hierom observes on Mark 16. ƲT SIT ƲNA FIDES SƲB ƲNO PASTORE. Our Blessed Savior having purchas'd to himself his Sheep at a rigo∣rous rate, by the Spargiment and Effusion of his Sacred Blood, was pleas'd upon his departure out of this World to entrust the care of them to Peter, as to a Faithful and Vigilant Guardian; and not only to him, but to his Suc∣cessors after him, as Chrysost. affirms in his Second Book de Sacerd. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For why did Christ shed his Blood? that he might acquire to himself those Sheep which he deliver'd into the Hands of Pe∣ter and his Successors after him.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Hail Peter Prince of the Apostles, Hail Peter Rock of the Church, Hail Pe∣ter

Celestial Porter, Hail Peter Supreme Pastor of Christ's Flock. It is not in the power of any Person whatsoever to despoil thee of any of those glorious Prerogatives which the Blessed Jesus invested thee with. Neither can any Virulent Tongue, tho' bath'd in the Decoction of Ve∣nom; or any malicious Pen, tho' dipt in the strongest In∣fusion of Gall, be now injurious to you, sitting aloft in the Starry Palace of Heaven, Crown'd with unfading Diadems of Glory, enrob'd with bright Vestments of pure refin'd Light, Embroider'd with your Illustrious Ti∣tles. Free from the Stratagems and Petitions of that Sa∣tan who once requested to Winnow you; and safe from the bitings of your Spiteful Adversaries, who snarl at thy Lustrous Splendor, as Wolves bark at the Moon, when adorn'd with her clearest Refulgency she travails in Pomp through her Fields of Light. But I, in the mean time, most Blessed Saint, will pray to thee to pray for me, Sancte Petre, Ora pro nobis: And thus I conclude my First Book of your Supremacy, most humbly begging, that if I have wrote any thing worthy of your Approbation, you would be pleas'd to accept of it as flowing from a Heart devoted to your Honor, pardoning the imperfect Characters of a Pen vanquish'd by the Greatness of so Sublime a Subject.

FINIS.