To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
VVE are now come to the quick. The first great question is; Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church. This would be proved from Matth.* 1.1 16. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. The Argument is, what Christ promised he gave, but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church; therefore this Power was given him.
If this Argument conclude, by [this Rock] [Ans.] must be meant St. Peter; and the words [I will build my Church upon it] must signifie the com∣mitting the Supreme Power of the Church to him.
For the First, It is at least a controversie a∣mong the ancient Fathers; and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing, but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise, and was made by Peter just before, as St. Cyril, Hilary, Jerom, Ambrose, Basil, and St. Augustine, whose Lap∣sus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton. Princ. doct. li. 6. c. 3.
But I am willing to agree as far as we may; and therefore shall not deny, but something pe∣culiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised; (though I believe it was a point of Honour, not a Supremacy of Power;) what that was will appear by the thing promised, I will build my Church—that is, upon my Doctrine preached by thee. I will build my Church, thou shalt have the honour, of being a prime and principal Author of the Worlds Conversion; or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart: Peter, was in order with the first who be∣lieved;* 1.2 and amongst those First, he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren. Yet as he, so the Rest are called Foundations; and indeed so were in both these Sences: For the Twelve were all Prime Converts, and converters of others; and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built: But they were not built one upon a∣nother, and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ him∣self.
We are willing to any thing, that the Sence of the words will conveniently bear; but that they should signifie Power and Government over the whole Church, and the rest of the Apostles, we cannot understand: for, the Rock is suppo∣sed before the building upon it; and the build∣ing before the Government of the house; and the Government of the Church, cannot tolle∣rably be thought to be of the Foundation, or first building of the Church; but for the Pre∣servation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed.
Perhaps there is ground to allow, that Pe∣ter's Foundation was the first; as his Name was first among the Apostles; and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients, in their writings* 1.3 acknowledged in Saint Peter: but certainly, there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signifie that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church; which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter: how∣ever, after the Resurrection of Christ, all were made equal, both in Honour and Power; as Saint Cyprian saith, de Ʋnita: Eccles.
But it is urged, that the other Part of the* 1.4 Promise, is most clear, to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. the fulness of Celestial Power, as Hart expressed it.
Our Answer is, that Christ, here, promised no [Answ.] more Power to Peter, than he performed to all the Apostles: Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all; and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all; and no∣thing
can be clearer, either in the Text, or in Fact.
The Text is plain; both, in it self, and in the Judgment of the Fathers; that Peter stood in the room of the rest; both when he made the Confession, and received the Promise, Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 1 18. St. Ambr. in Psal. 38. Jerom. adv. Jovi: li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract. 1.* 1.5 Hilary de Trinit. l. 6. &c. Cardinal. Cusan. is plain in this Point also.
And, that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles, is evident, by the performance of it. A Promise, is of something de futuro: our Saviour saith to Peter, I will give thee the Keys; but when did he do it? and how did he do it? Certainly at the time, when he deli∣vered those words recorded, John 20. 21, 23. And after the manner there expressed, and by that Form of Words: now, are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the A∣postles? As my Father sent me, so do I send you; whose soever sins ye remit, &c. nothing plainer.
To say, that Christ gave not the Keys to all; but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins, seems pitiful, unless some other proof be offered, that Christ, did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart; and give him the Keys at some other time, in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together.
Remitting and retaining sins, is certainly the Power of the Keys; and so called, by the Council of Trent itself, Chatech. in Sacram. Paenit. and 'tis not the keeping, but the Power of the Keys, is the question; and indeed Bellarmine proves, that the whole Power of the Keys, and not a part only, as Stapleton supposed, was
granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fa∣thers, in Prael. Rom. Controv. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif.
Stapleton from Turrecrem; distinguisheth be∣twixt* 1.6 the Apostolick, and the Episcopal Power; and they grant, that the Apostolick Power was equal in all the Apostles, and received immediatly from Christ; but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys; and immediatly and by him, to the rest.
This is a new shift: else, why is the Title, Apostolical, given to the Pope, to his See, to all Acts, &c. seeing the Pope, according to the sineness of this distinction, doth not succeed Peter, as an Apostle, but as a Bishop.
'Tis as strang, as new: seeing the Power of the Keys, must as well denote the Episcopal Pow∣er of the rest of the Apostles, as of Peter; and the Power of using them, by remitting, &c. was given, generally and immediatly, by Christ to them all alike.
This distinction of Turrecremata, was as Reynolds against Hart sheweth, spoiled, before* 1.7 Doctor Stapleton new vamped it, by two learn∣ed Friars, Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria; evidencing both out of the Scriptures, that the* 1.8 Apostles received all their Power immediatly of Christ; and the Fathers, that in the Power of Apostleship and order, (so the two Powers were called) Paul was equal to Peter; and the rest, to them both.
Therefore, this distinction failing, another is invented, and a third kind of Power is set up; viz. the Power of Kingdoms; and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter; Apostola∣tus,
Ordinis, Regni, it is strongly affirmed: 1. Touching the Apostleship, Paul, as Jerom saith,* 1.9 was not inferior to Peter; for he was chosen to preach the Gospel, not by Peter, but by God, as Peter was. 2. Touching the Power given* 1.10 in the Sacrament of Order, Jerom saith well too; that all the Apostles received the Keys equally; and that they all, as Bishops, were equal in the degree of Priesthood, and the Spiritual Power of that degree: thus the first distinction is gone. But, thirdly, touching the Power* 1.11 of Kingdom, Saint Jerom saith best of all, that Peter was chosen among the Twelve, and made the Head of all, that all occasion of Schism might be removed.
These are Phansies of the Schoolmen; but where are they grounded? we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy, in the Scripture; where do we there, find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ? or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys?
We grant, many expressions are found in the Fathers, in honour of Saint Peter: Saint Augu∣stine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and pre∣eminent with excellent Grace: Saint Chryso∣stom, calleth him the Mouth, the Chief, the Top of the Company; Theodoret stiles him, the Prince; Epiphanius the Highest; Saint Augustine the Head, President and first of the Apostles; which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian, who saith, the Lord chose Peter first; and Saint Je∣rom saith, he was the Head, that occasion of Schism might be taken away, and gives him the honour of great Authority; all these were used by Hart against Raynolds.
To them all, Doctor Raynolds gives cleer and satisfactory answers shewing largely that they signifie nothing but a Primacy of Election, or Order, or Dignity, or Esteem, and Authority in that Sence: or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts, viz. a Principallity or Chiefness in Worth; or a Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies, as the Mouth and Moderator; or the Head of Ʋnity and Order, as Jerom means: but 'tis not to be proved from any or all of these Encomiums, that the Fathers believed that the other Apo∣stles were under Saint Peter as their Gover∣nour; or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they.
The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full: albeit Christ, saith he, gave equal Power to* 1.12 all the Apostles after his Resurrection; and said, as my Father, &c. yet to declare Ʋnity, he disposed by his Authority, the Original of that Ʋnity, beginning in one: no doubt, saith he, the rest were the same that Peter was; endued with the like fellowship (pari Consortio) of Honour and Power; but, the beginning doth come from Ʋnity, that the Church of Christ may be shew∣ed to be but one.
Thus, this Topick of the Fathers, expound∣ing the Text, being found to fail; another de∣vice, and such a one as the very detection, both answers and shames the Authors, is fled unto; viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers; and to make them speak home indeed.
The place of Saint Cyprian, just now set, is a* 1.13 very clear instance of this black Art, allowed by the Popes themselves; the place in the former Prints, was, as it is set down, in the Roman-purged.
Cyprian, is thus altered by addition of these words, And the Primacy is given to Peter. Again he ap∣pointed one Church, and the Chair to be one; and to make all sure, the Antwerp Cyprian ad∣deth conveniently Peter's Chair: And then, saith he, who forsaketh Peter's Chair, on which the* 1.14 Church was founded, &c. And by this time Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy. Vid. Dr. Rayn. p. 210, 211.
But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril, Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned, beyond all tolerable defence. To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus: Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors—The Apostles in the Go∣spels and Epistles have affirmed (in every Doctrine) Peter and his Church to be instead of God; and to him, even to Peter, all do bow by the Law of God, and the Princes of the World are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Jesus; and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head, the Pope and Apostolick See, &c.
Now either St. Cyril said thus, or not: If he did; who will believe him, that shall make such Stories, and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament, contrary to common sence, and the knowledge of all; or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers. But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure, be none of St. Cyril's, as certainly it is not; then though I am provo∣ked, I shall say no more; but that we should weigh the Reasons, but not the Authority of such a Schoolman, especially in his Masters Cause. 'Tis certain, the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure, which are Extant, as
Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds.
Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous* 1.15 a thing, as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops even the General Council of Calcedon, when he saith they decreed thus. If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge; and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power, in the stead of God, to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop, ac∣cording to the Keys which the Lord did give him; calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and uni∣versal Patriarch of the whole World. Now in that Council there is not a word of all this; and they answer, Hereticks have rased it out, if you will believe it, but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting. I shall only make this Note, that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master: 'Tis no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judg∣es, but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture.
One would think this were enough: but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the A∣postles, was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients, but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words, Tues Petrus &c. upon unanswerable Reason. Lyra, on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4 Cent. dist. 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the* 1.16 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly, that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ, to give any Supremacy to Peter; for af∣terwards they contended for Superiority, Matth.
18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it, Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again, Luke 22. Therefore he concludes, they thought themselves equal till Christs death, when they knew not which of them should be greatest. Cusanus his contemporary de concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria. This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Pa∣ris,* 1.17 and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne, and of the Bishops of his Province; the Decrees of whose Synod, with this interpretation, were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth, and enjoyned to be observed.
Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Suprema∣cy is sunk, and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-stru∣cture.
Another Scripture much insisted on for the* 1.18 support of St. Peter's Supremacy, is Joh. 21. 14, 15, 16. Peter lovest thou me, feed my Sheep, feed my Lambs: Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church.
'Tis answered, this Text gives not any Com∣mission [Ans.] or power to St. Peter; it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before. Now it hath appeared suffi∣ciently, that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words; as my Father sent me, so send I you, &c. so that the power of feed∣ing, and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all; though this Charge was given to Peter by name here, with so many Items perhaps intima∣ting his repeated Prevarications; yet were they all sent, and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import: Teach all Na∣tions,
Preach the Gospel to every Creature; are our Saviours charge to them all.
In the Apostolick Power all were equal (saith [Obj.] Hart) not in the Pastoral Charge.
We answer with a distinction (allowed by [Ans.] Stapleton) of the Name Pastor; 'tis special and distinct from Apostle: Some Apostles—some* 1.19 Pastors; or general and common to all commis∣sion'd to preach the Gospel: So Christ is called Pastor, and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter.
But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest; for [Obj.] he is charged to feed all the Sheep, the whole Church: Now the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep, and members of his Church. Hart and Ray. p 129.
Christ saith not to Peter, feed (all) my Sheep, [Ans.] but he doth say to them all Preach—to every Creature: And if Peter have power over the rest, because they are Sheep, and he is to feed the Sheep; then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature, and they are to preach to every Creature. But this is trifling, so is all that is further argued from this Text; though by Feeding we understand Ruling, Ruling of Pastors, or what you will; while whatsoever was charged on Peter here, is within the same Commission, wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before; and that of Bellarmine, [that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor; the Apostles as extra∣ordinary Embassadors] is altogether as ground∣less; as if there were any colour of Reason, that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador.
Dr. Hammond observes, Bellarmine was not* 1.20 the Author of that Artifice; Cajetan and Victo∣ria had used it before him; and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent; where the Bishop of Granada derided it, and the Au∣thors of it; and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed, that Cajetan was (about 50 years before) the first deviser of it. The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture, as under∣stood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen; as he af∣firmed. Concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11.
To conclude this matter, Feed my Sheep, are not a ground for the Popes Presidency; which are found not to be so of Peter's, above the body of the Universal Church; as was publickly pro∣nounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors, and appears by the Opusc. of John Patriarch of Anti∣och: And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same* 1.21 time, makes them words of Precept not of In∣stitution; and both are agreeable to the inter∣pretation of the Ancients. St. Ambrose de dign. Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago. Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21, &c.
It is time to look further. The third great* 1.22 place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being converted, strengthen thy Brethren. Whence Hart reasons thus: Christ commands Peter to streng∣then* 1.23 his Brethren; and his Brethren were the A∣postles: Therefore he was to strengthen the A∣postles, and by consequence he must be their Su∣preme Head.
When Hart urged this Argument, with all [Ans.] his wit and might; and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident, there is no Authority given by the words; nor carried in the word Strengthen, that
Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors: (much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church; he confes∣seth with Stapleton, that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection, when he said to him, Feed my Lambs; (which we have weighed before) but those words of (strengthning, &c.) he spake before his death, and did but (futuram insinuaverat) insinuate therein; and as Harts word is, that he would make him Supreme Head; then if he did not make him so after∣ward, he did it not at all.
That Peter had power over the rest of the* 1.24 Apostles, would be proved, as before; from the Promise and Commission of Christ, so at last by* 1.25 Peter's Execution; he proposed the Election of a new Apostle in the Room of Judas.
Therefore he was Speaker (at least pro tempore) [Ans.] in the Assembly; but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch.
But St. Chrysostom saith, that though Peter's [Obj.] modesty was commendable for doing all things* 1.26 by common advice and consent, and nothing by his own Authority; yet addeth, that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself.
Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him [Ans.] * 1.27 by the rest, a Primacy, not a Supremacy: Again he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles, (not the donation of Christ) as Hart* 1.28 confesseth. But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity; and 'tis he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself: The Scripture saith not that he might; yea it saith he did not. And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this
power is come to this, that he did not execute it.
Besides, many Fathers and in Council too; to∣gether with St. Cyprian, pronounce; that Peter proposing the matter, to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice, did accord∣ing to the lessons and Precepts of God; therefore, jure divino, they thought Peter had no such pow∣er as Dr. Raynolds shews. p. 159.
But when Peter had been heard, all the Mul∣titude* 1.29 held their peace; and James and all the Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence.
What is this to prove his Supremacy? because [Ans.] the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him, was therefore Gamaliel (a Pharisee, a Doctor of the Law, whom all the People honoured) Su∣preme* 1.30 Head, and Superior to the High-Priest and Council? And if Jerom say, Peter was Princeps Decreti, he acknowledged perhaps the Reason, the Motion, and the Delivery or declaration of it, principally to Peter, the first Author of the Sen∣tence, as the same Jerom calls him; and explains himself Epist. 11. inter Epistol. August. So was* 1.31 Tully called, viz. Prince of Decrees, when he was neither President nor Prince of the Senate.
We conclude, that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles, or the whole Church; because it neither was promised him, nor given him, nor* 1.32 Executed by him; notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter; from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue: many of them being uncertain; some vain and trifling, and some common with the rest of the Apostles; but neither divisim or con∣junctim sufficient to make, or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter.
5. 'Tis indeed, said, by some of the Fathers;* 1.33 that the Government of the World, and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter: but it is plain they speak of his Apostle∣ship; for they say the same of Paul; ille Solus∣gerebat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Orbis praefectam suscepit; and the like, of Timothy; who was never reputed Ʋniversal Monarck: Paul and Peter had two different Primacies (Saint* 1.34 Ambr.) had the same Dignity; (Chrisost.) were equal.) Oecumenius.
1 Scrip. Matth. 16: 18.
P. 60.
Paul had the fame Primacy over Bar∣nabas, that Peter over Apost. as St. Amb. in 2 ad. Gal.
2. Script. Matth. 16. 19.
Vid. Con∣cor. Cottrol. l. 2. c. 13.
From Tur∣recrem.
Relect. 2. de Potest. Eccl.
Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot. 269 & 271.
1. In Com. ad Gal.
2. Advers. Jovini. & ad Evag.
3. Advers. Jovin. & Luci••.
1. St. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl.
In Opusc. Contr. Graec.
Against Hart.
Ibid.
In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83, 84.
Bin. Conc. an. 1549.
3. Joh. 21. 14, &c.
Eph. 4.
13 Oct. 1562.
De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23.
Luk. 22. 31
Rayn. and Hart. p. 142.
4 Scrip.
Act. 1. 25.
In Matth. 40. 51.
In Matth. Hom. 15.
Rayn. Hart. p. 156.
5 Scrip. Act. 15.
Act. 3. 34.
Pro Cor. Balbo.
Peter ad∣ded, Nihil doctrinae aut potesta∣tis Aquinas. Not inferi∣or to the chief A∣post. 2 Cor. 11. 5.
So Paul judged. Chris. Hom. 12. 2. & 87.
Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud.