The texts examined which papists cite out of the Bible to prove the supremacy of St. Peter and of the Pope over the whole church.

The TEXTS examined which Papiſts cite out of the Bible, TO PROVE The Supremacy of St. PETER and of the POPE over the whole Church.

IMPRIMATUR.

Guil. Needham. Febr. 14. 1687.

THE Queſtion to be debated in this Paper is, Whether the Apoſtle St. Peter was conſtituted by Chriſt himſelf, to be, in his ſtead, the Head and ſupreme Governour of the whole Church. This we deny, having undeniable Proofs that all the Apoſtles were placed by Chriſt, in equal Power and Authority over his Church. But the Doctors of the Roman Church affirm this with ſo much Confidence, as to ſay; that to deny it, is not a ſimple Error, but a pernicious Hereſy. They are the words of Bellarmine L. 1. de Rom. Pontif. c. 10, 11.; who earneſtly contends that the Government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, eſpecially about Matters of Faith.

Which bold Aſſertion he labours to ſupport three ways.

Firſt, By ſome places of Holy Scriptures. Secondly, By many Privileges and Prerogatives of St. Peter. Thirdly, By Teſtimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers.

I am concerned only in the firſt of theſe Ways; in which if this Cauſe find no true ſupport, we need not trouble our ſelves about the other two: which are ſo weak, that ſome ingenuous Perſons in their Communion have acknowledged, the Prerogatives are either feigned at pleaſure, or no more to the purpoſe of his Supremacy, than the pretended Teſtimonies of Ancient Fathers, which are againſt it.

Now the Scriptures which they alledg for the proof of it, are two places in the holy Goſpels. The one in St. Matthew xvi. 18, 19. the other in St. John xxi. 17. In the former of theſe this Supreme Authority, they ſay, is promiſed to St. Peter; in the latter it is conferred.

I begin with the firſt, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. And I ſay unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, &c. And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind o • Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven: and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven. The Senſe of which words, ſays Bellarmine, is plain and obvious: giving us to underſtand, the Soveraignty over the whole Church to be here promiſed unto Peter, in two Metaphors. The one is a Metaphor of a Foundation and a Building: the other is a Metaphor of Keys. For what a Foundation is in the Building, that the Head is in the Body, the Governour in the City, the King in his Kingdom, and the Father of the Family in the Houſe: and to whom the Keys of a City are delivered, he is appointed the King, or at leaſt the Governour of that City; to admit and ſhut out whom he pleaſeth.

Unto which I have this to ſay, before I give the true Senſe of theſe words: That to call this a plain and obvious Senſe of the words, which is wrapt up in a couple of Metaphors, is to ſtumble at the very Threſhold; and to contradict himſelf in the terms, as they ordinarily ſpeak. For what is metaphorical, is not plain and obvious; but needs Explanation, by putting it into common words: Into which if theſe Metaphors be reduced, we ſhall find there is no ſuch Senſe contained in them, as is pretended.

I ſhall explain them diſtinctly, and begin with the former part of this Promiſe, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: which we may call the firſt Proof they bring of St. Peter's being the Monarch of the Church.

I. Which Senſe is ſo far from being plain and obvious, that having conſidered both the words, and all the ancient Expoſitors upon them, I can find nothing plainer than theſe two things: Firſt, That there is no certainty St. Peter is here meant by the Rock, upon which Chriſt ſaith he will build his Church: Nor, Secondly, If he were, that Chriſt intended by calling him a Rock, to make him the Lord of his Church.

Firſt, I ſay there is no Evidence that St. Peter is here meant by the Rock: but quite contrary, we are led by the general ſtream of Ancient Interpreters, to underſtand by the Rock upon which the Church is built, that Faith concerning Chriſt which Peter had newly confeſſed. There are more than two that thus expound the words, for one that expounds them otherwiſe: as may be ſeen in a Sermon lately printed on this SubjectSermon on St. Peter's day. 1686. ; which ſhows alſo that the other Expoſitions do not really differ from this; but even they, who apply theſe words to St. Peter, had reſpect (in calling him the Rock) to his preaching the Doctrine of Chriſt; and having the honour to be the firſt Preacher of it to the Gentiles. Which is all the Priviledg that can be thought to be peculiarly intended to him in theſe words. For, excepting this, whatſoever was ſaid to him, was directed to all the Apoſtles; becauſe Peter as their Mouth, ſpake the Senſe of them all, when he ſaid, Thou art Chriſt the Son of the Living God; and therefore Chriſt's Anſwer was returned to them all, when he ſaid, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church.

As much as to ſay, Thou art what thy Name imports, which I have given thee with reſpect to this ſolid Faith thou haſt now confeſſed: upon which, as upon a Rock, I will build my Church by your Miniſtry; and particularly by thine, who ſhalt have the Honour to lay the firſt Stone of it, in the Gentile World. Thus St. Auſtin Tract. exxiv. in Joh. Serm. xiii. de verbis Dom, &c. expounds the words in many places; where he obſerves Peter had his Name from Petra the Rock, viz. That Faith which he confeſſed, upon which Chriſt told him he would build his Church. For he doth not ſay, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church; but upon this Rock: which plainly relates to another thing, viz. that immoveable Foundation, confeſſed by Peter, that he was Chriſt the Son of God. Whence thoſe known words of the ſame Father, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee.

If it were the intention of this Paper to quote Teſtimonies, I could name a great multitude, even the ordinary Gloſs, which ſpeak to the ſame purpoſe. But it is wholly needleſs, ſince the other Expoſition which makes St. Peter the Rock here ſpoken of, is againſt the moſt unanimous conſent of the Fathers of the Church: which they of the Church of Rome are bound to follow both by the Doctrine of the Council of Trent Seſſ. iv., and by the form of that Oath of Profeſſion of Faith which Pope Pius IV. drew up and enjoined, according to the Mind of that Council. And yet (ſo vilely are ſome addicted to regard nothing but their Intereſt) there are thoſe, who, to make theſe words ſound as if Chriſt promiſed to build his Church upon Peter himſelf, have not bluſh'd thus to tranſlate them; Thou art Peter, and upon this PETER will I build my Church. So Dr. Allen would have had the Tranſlation run in the Rhemiſh Teſtament: and ſo Hart alledges them in his Conference with Dr. Reynolds Chap. 2. Diviſ. 1.. And now lately the Catholick Scripturiſt tranſlates them after this manner, (according to the Language which Chriſt ſpoke) Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. As if it will be lawful for them to do any thing (even contradict that very Council, whoſe Decrees they are ſworn to obſerve) that they may make the Scripture ſeem to be on their ſide. For the Council of Trent hath decreed the old Latin Tranſlation to be authentical, with a prohibition that no Man dare or preſume under any pretence to reject it. Notwithſtanding which here are Men that preſume to reform it, and to make a new Tranſlation of their own Heads, as different from that authentick vulgar Tranſlation as from ours: for in this ours and that are the ſame, as every body may know that underſtands the Latin Tongue.

This is a Preſumption with a Witneſs, to make their own Tranſlation depart ſo far from the Language which Chriſt ſpoke, as to put tu es Petrus, inſtead of tu es Petra: For ſo Chriſt's words ſhould have been tranſlated, if they ſignified thou art a Rock, unleſs they can ſhew us that Petrus, in any Author, is latin for a Rock. Till this be done, we muſt ſay that ſuch Men, contrary to their Faith ſolemnly ſworn, depart not only from Antiquity, but from themſelves.

And when they have done all they can, it will evidently appear, that the Church was not built by his Hands alone, (tho he began, as I ſaid, and laid the firſt Stone among the Gentiles) but by them all, and more eſpecially by St. Paul, who was called late into this Office,1 Cor. xv. 10. & iii. 10, 11. but laboured more abundantly than they all; and as a wiſe Maſter-builder laid the Foundation, upon which others built. Which Foundation, he tells us is Jeſus Chriſt himſelf: who, he likewiſe ſays, is the only Foundation, and that no Man can lay other Foundation beſides him. Which ſhews this Promiſe, I am treating of, had reſpect to all that had the Office of Apoſtles; and wholly ruines the Authority of St. Peter, upon which they would have the Church to be built. For if Jeſus Chriſt be the only Foundation that can be laid, then Peter cannot be the Foundation: but only as a Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, who help'd to lay the Foundation, which is Chriſt himſelf and his Faith. In which Miniſtry he was no more imployed than other Apoſtles; but St. Paul, who came laſt into this Miniſtry, was as wiſe a Maſter-builder as himſelf, and took more Pains than he or any of the reſt: laying the Foundation where neither St. Peter, nor any Body elſe had ever been, leſt he ſhould build upon another Man's Foundation, as he tells the Roman Church, Rom. xv. 20.

Which words uttterly overthrow their vain diſtinction of a firſt, and a ſecondary Foundation, whereby they endeavour to elude thoſe words of St. Paul in the place before-named, 1 Cor. iii. 11. For it appears by this other place that St. Paul was a ſecondary or miniſterial Foundation, if we may ſo ſpeak; that is, ſpeak improperly, meaning thereby one that laid the Foundation. Which he did as much as St. Peter, or any other Apoſtle; nay, a great deal more, as he himſelf tells us, when he ſaith he laboured more abundantly than they all.

In exact ſpeaking, there is no Foundation on which the Church is built but Chriſt alone (as St. Paul aſſures us) in whom all the Building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord; Epheſ. ii. 21. But Faith in Chriſt, being that whereby we are joyned to him, it may be called by the ſame Name: and accordingly the Coloſſians are ſaid to be grounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Col. 1.23. in the Faith, as upon a Foundation (the Greek word ſignifies) from which he would have them not to be moved. And the Apoſtles (as he there ſaith) being the Preachers of this Faith, and the Inſtruments whereby Men were brought to believe on Chriſt, and ſo joyned to him as Living Stones, are called by the Name of Foundation, in the place before-named; Epheſ. ii. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, &c. But then, it is evident that Peter alone is not this Foundation, but all the Apoſtles. For there are XII Foundations (of this ſort) as we read in Rev. xxi. 14. by whoſe Miniſtry the Church was built upon Chriſt; the ſole Foundation (in proper ſpeaking) that was laid for all to build upon.

Finally, the Apoſtles underſtand no ſuch Preheminence, as is now pretended, to be promiſed to St. Peter in theſe words; nor did he himſelf ſo underſtand them, when the Holy Ghoſt was come upon them to lead them into all Truth. For then St. Paul could not have ſaid, that he came not a whit behind the very chiefeſt Apoſtles, and that he was behind them in nothing (2 Cor. xi. 5. & xii. 11.) nor could he have undertaken to correct St. Peter (Gal. ii. 11, 12, &c.) nor would St. Peter have born his Cenſure, if he had known he was the Head of the Church: but have bidden St. Paul know his diſtance; and remember that he ought not to controul him, but be controuled by him as his Better.

Secondly; After all this that hath been ſaid, to ſhew there is nothing here promiſed to Peter, but what belongs to all the Apoſtles, except only that of his being imployed in laying the firſt Foundation of Faith among the Gentiles: It remains that I ſhew there is nothing in the word Rock, which implies any Superiority of Power and Authority over the reſt of his Brethren and the whole Church; if we ſhould ſuppoſe this Promiſe to have been made to him alone; for it denotes nothing of Government; but hath reſpect to the ſupport and ſtability of that Structure, which is firmly laid upon it. And therefore the ancient Doctors (as may be ſeen in the Sermon before-mentioned) give other Reaſons of his being called a Rock, and not this; becauſe to him was committed the Government of the whole Church, eſpecially about Faith. Which is the Explanation Bellarmine gives of this word, affirming it to be the ſignification of this Metaphor: for it is proper to a fundamental Rock to govern and ſuſtain the whole Edifice. This is perfectly new Language, never heard of in the World before, that it is proper to a Foundation to govern; for it is altogether improper, and no body thinks of any ſuch thing, when he reads of a Foundation. But if it be proper, then all the Apoſtles were Governours of the whole Church, as well as he; becauſe they were all Foundations, as was before obſerved; having the very ſame Power given to them by Chriſt, which, we now ſuppoſe, was here promiſed to him alone.

Unto which they of the Church of Rome have nothing to reply, but only this (whch is meerly a bold Affirmation, and as abſurd as all the reſt) they were indeed all of them the Heads, Governors, and Paſtors of the Church univerſal: but not after the ſame manner as Peter was of Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. Rom. cap. xi.. Why ſo? For they had the higheſt and moſt ample Power, as Apoſtles and Ambaſſadors; but Peter alſo as an ordinary Paſtor. As much as to ſay, They had indeed the higheſt Power in the Church, and as large as he, but not ſo high a Power as his. Let any Man try, if he can make any other Senſe of thoſe words; that is, find any Senſe at all in them. For was this Power of being an ordinary Paſtor, greater than that of the Apoſtles, or no? If it were greater, then it is not true which he affirms, that the Apoſtles had the higheſt Power Habuerunt ſummam Poteſtatem. If it were leſs than the Power of the Apoſtles, then they were all greater than he, as he was an ordinary Paſtor: and then it is non-ſenſe to ſay, they ſo had a plenitude of Power, as that St. Peter was notwithſtanding the Head of them, and they all depended on him. For he rather depended on them, as an ordinary Paſtor, if that was leſs than the Power of the Apoſtleſhip: and if it were not, but greater than it; then (as I ſaid) it is falſe, that the Apoſtles had the higheſt Power.

This is ſufficient to ſhew into what Abſurdities Men run, when they go about to maintain a Falſhood; and what wretched ſhifts they deviſe to obſcure the clear Truth, which ſhines in their Eyes: Which when they have done, they walk as in Darkneſs, and cannot be perſwaded to ſee or acknowledg their Error. Nay, one Error grows out of another, and having begun to wreſt the Holy Scripture, they go on to ſtrain it, ſo far as to extend it to any purpoſe they have to ſerve by it.

For having preſumed that Peter, and he alone, is promiſed to be made the Governour of the whole Church, by theſe Words of our Saviour, they immediately preſume, without the ſhew of a proof, that the Biſhops of Rome ſucceed him in this Authority. Which is a very large Step, or rather Leap, from Peter to the Popes of Rome, between whom there is ſuch a vaſt diſtance, that it is impoſſible to make out the Claim, to which they pretend from him. For there is no evidence that St. Peter was Biſhop of Rome, but only that he founded that Church, and ſetled a Biſhop there. For if he was Biſhop of Antioch, it was againſt all antient Rules, to leave that, and go to another See. The truth is, he was properly Biſhop of neither; but planted a Church in each: and firſt at Antioch, before he came to Rome. And who can think he did not ſettle one to take care of that Church of Antioch, when he left it? who may be called his Succeſſor, as well as he, whom he is ſuppoſed to have placed afterwards in Rome. Which two things being allowed, as unqueſtionable Matters of Fact, there is no reaſon can be given why all the Power and Juriſdiction which is claimed upon the account of Succeſſion, ſhould not devolve by the Right of Primogeniture, upon the Biſhop of Antioch: ſince it is confeſſed he firſt fat there, and ſat there ſeven Years, which is more than can be proved he did at Rome, where he was not when St. Paul came thither (Act. xxviii.) nor when he firſt anſwered before Nero, nor when he was ready to be offered, 2 Tim. iv. 6, 11, 16. nor can any certain time be aſſigned when he was there, as we are ſure St. Paul was, who is acknowledged to be a Founder of that Church, and had as much (or rather more) right to leave a Biſhop to ſucceed him there, as St. Peter; who could transfer to no body, neither there nor any where elſe, what was perſonally veſted in him; as all the Priviledg here granted him was. Or, if he was to have any Succeſſor in his ſuppoſed Dominion, there were others had a better Title to it, than the Biſhop of Rome; particularly St. John, who it is certain ſurvived St. Peter. L. 1. de Pont. Rom. c. ix. Therefore all that Bellarmine dare ſay in this matter is, that the Apoſtles being dead, the Apoſtolical Authority remained in Peter's Succeſſor alone. For which he gives us not one word of proof, but only this notorious Falſhood, that the Roman Biſhop alone is called by all, the Apoſtolical Biſhop, and his See ſimply the Apoſtolical See. When all the World knows, Jeruſalem, Conſtantinople, and divers other Places are called by the ſame Name of Apoſtolical Sees or Churches; and their Biſhops called not only Apoſtolical, but Catholick, and ſaid to be Biſhops of the Catholick Church. The meaning of all which is nothing elſe, but that they held the Catholick Religion and Faith,Epiſt. pars 1. ad Franciſcum Bonum. as Launoy moſt ingenuouſly confeſſes, and maintains the Roman Biſhops themſelves intended no more, when they ſubſcribed themſelves Biſhops of the Catholick Church.

Nay, Bellarmine himſelf, in the place now named, is conſtrained to acknowledg, that the Supreme Eccleſiaſtical Power was given not only to Peter, but to other Apoſtles alſo. For they might all ſay that of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 28. My daily buſineſs, the Care of all the Churches. But it was given to Peter as an ordinary Paſtor, who ſhould have perpetual Succeſſors: to others as Delegates, who ſhould have no Succeſſors. Which is a meer Invention, a pure Figment of his own brain; without the ſhadow of a ground for it in the Book of God, or any ancient Authority; and againſt his own Confeſſion, that all the Apoſtles had the higheſt Power; which includes all Power both ordinary and extraordinary, and a Power to appoint their Succeſſors, in the Places they converted.

There have abundance of other things been ſaid by our Writers, to ſhew that whatſoever may be ſuppoſed to have been promiſed in theſe Words, the Biſhops of Rome can thence derive no lawful Claim to the like Authority. And yet (as if there were nothing plainer, than that Chriſt ſpake to the Roman Biſhops, when he ſaid theſe Words to St. Peter) they have the confidence from hence to entitle the Pope to the Priviledg of Infallibility, as well as to a Supreme Dominion over the Church. So Bellarmine, who elſewhere alledges theſe Words,L. iv. de Rom. Pontific. c. 3. to prove that the chief Biſhop (i. e. theirs) when he teacheth the whole Church, in things belonging to Faith, can in no caſe err. But this depends upon his former Suppoſitions, that Peter is the Rock of the Church as its Supreme Governour; and therefore every one of his Succeſſors in like manner is the ſame: which having no Foundation, all his Superſtructure upon them falls to the Ground. And indeed it is ſo ſandy, that honeſt Men among themſelves are aſhamed to build any thing of this nature upon it: Particularly Launnoy who, on ſet purpoſe, demonſtrates that Bellarmine neither obeyed the Decree of the Trent Council,Epiſt. pars v. Gulielmo Voello. nor kept the Profeſſion of Faith enjoined by Pius IV. when he drew this Concluſion of the Popes Infallibility, from theſe Words, Thou art Peter, &c. but was guilty of down-right Flattery of the Court of Rome; for whoſe ſake he, in like manner, falfied in the Citations he brings out of the Fathers, to maintain the ſame Untruth.

But further than this, the ſame Writer preſſes theſe words, to prove, that General Councils cannot err, neither in believing, nor teaching L. 2. de Conc. Autor. cap. i.. Which is as much as to confeſs that what Chriſt ſaid to Peter, was intended to all Biſhops: of whom a General Council conſiſts. But here he endeavours to bring off himſelf, by this Salvo; if the Council be confirmed by the Pope: as if they received their Infallibility from him; who turns their doubtful Opinions into Oracles. Whence it is, that from the very ſame words, [Thou art Peter &c.] he proves the Pope to be above a Council Ib. cap. xv.; immediately conſtituted by Chriſt the Paſtor and Head, not only of all particular Churches, but alſo of the whole univerſal Church congregated together.

If this be to interpret the Scripture, I know not what is ſetting it upon the Rack; and ſtretching it as far as it pleaſeth him who takes it in hand. No Hereticks ever took ſo great a liberty as this; which, according to their way of reaſoning, makes it neceſſary to ſeal up the Bible quite, that no body may look into it. For if the danger of wreſting the holy Scriptures, be a juſt cauſe for denying the liberty of reading them to illiterate people; it ought not to be granted to the moſt Learned, who (it appears by this great Cardinal) are in as much, or more danger of this than any other Men: and ſo farewel the ſtudy of the Scriptures, which neither Prieſt nor People muſt meddle withal.

But, thanks be to God, there is ſuch a thing as Honeſty and Integrity ſtill remaining in the World; which qualifies all Men for the wholſome peruſal of them: and hath preſerv'd the minds of ſome in that Communion ſo uncorrupted, as to make them diſdain and reject theſe perverſe and arrogant Interpretations, or Diſtortions rather, of Holy Scripture. There is one hath lately declared his ſenſe of this Promiſe to St. Peter, in remarkable words; with which I conclude this part of my DiſcourſeDu Pin de antiquae Eccleſ. Diſcipl. Diſſert. iv. cap. 1. ſect. 1.: Suppoſing Chriſt to have ſpoken theſe words [and upon this Rock] of the Perſon of Peter; he meant nothing elſe thereby, but that Peter ſhould labour very much in the Edification of the Church; that is, in the Converſion of the Faithful, and Adminiſtration of the Churches. And therefore the moſt that can be deduced from hence is, that he ſhould be the firſt and the chief among thoſe who were to preach the Goſpel: but it cannot from hence be gathered, with Bellarmine, that the Government of the whole Church was committed to Peter, eſpecially about Faith.

II. The truth of this will further appear, in the Explication of the next Words, which expound thoſe of which I have now treated: And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, it ſhall be bound in Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven.

The ſenſe of which is not ſo plain and obvious, as Bellarmine pretends; but we agree that they are a plain alluſion to the Words of the Prophet Iſaiah concerning Eliakim, Iſa. xxii. 23. I will give thee the Keys of the Houſe of David, i. e. make thee not High-Priest, as he groſsly miſtakes, but Steward of the Royal Family, to take in and thruſt out whom thou ſhalt think fit. Such was the Power here promiſed to Peter by our Lord, who ſaith of himſelf, that he hath the Key of David (Rev. iii. 7.) i. e. of the Houſe or Family of David; which he alone governs by an abſolute Power; but tells Peter he intended to make him, under himſelf, his Supreme Lord and Maſter, ſuch a Steward in the Church, as Eliakim had been in the Court.

I ſay, in the Church; for by the Kingdom of Heaven, I think no body now will diſpute, is meant the Family of Chriſt, or the Chriſtian Church, in a great many places of the Goſpel; and moſt likely is ſo to be interpreted here. But if any body be ſo minded as to underſtand by the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Chriſtian Society here below, but the Company of the Bleſſed above; let them conſider that the ſenſe will ſtill be the ſame; becauſe by admiſſion into the one, and abiding in it, we come to the other. And Baptiſm is the Key which lets us into the Church, out of which ſuch as notoriouſly break their Baptiſmal Vow, ought to be ſhut, by the Cenſures of the Church; and again received into it upon their hearty Repentance, by granting them Abſolution. Thus the following Words expound it, and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, &c.

That binding and looſing are one and the ſame, with the Power of the Keys, is acknowledged by the Roman Catechiſm De Sacrament. Paenitenn. 44. and by Bellarmine himſelf, who confeſſes the plain ſenſe of theſe Words to be, that firſt of all an Authority or Power is promiſed, defined by Keys; and then the Actions or Office of this Power is explained by thoſe words, looſing and binding. So that to looſe and to open, to ſhut and to bind, is altogether the ſame thing L. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. xii. verùm.. And we need not further trouble our ſelves to inquire how far this Power extends: for it is certain there is nothing here promiſed, though we ſuppoſe it never ſo large, which was intended to him alone, but to them all; except that of opening the door firſt to let the Gentiles into the Church.

This is apparent from what was ſaid before concerning Chriſt, ſpeaking to them all in him, as he ſpake for them all, in anſwer to our Saviour's Queſtion propounded to the whole Company. Which produced this Promiſe from our Saviour, not to him alone, but to all them in whoſe Name he ſpake. Which is no new Interpretation, but as old as the Church it ſelf: for the Antients ſay with an unanimous conſent, that theſe Keys were given to the whole Church in the Perſon of PeterDu Pin de antiqua Eccleſ. Diſc. diſſert. iv. c. 1. Sect. 1.; as a late Writer in the Roman Communion honeſtly confeſſes. St. Auſtin particularly, inculcates this an hundred times (as his words are) a proof of which may be ſeen in another of his BrethrenJo. Launoy Epiſt. par. 2. Hadriano Valantio, p. 14. &c. , who hath made a Collection of xxvi places out of his Works, to ſhew that he taught this openly, frequently and conſtantly, in ſuch plain words as may be underſtood by themſelves, without the help of an Interpreter. I cannot well forbear to mention one of them, becauſe it affords us many conſiderable Remarks:Aug. Enarratio in Pſal. cviii. As ſome things (ſays he) are ſpoken, which may ſeem properly to belong to the Apoſtle Peter, and yet have not a clear Senſe, but when they are referred to the Church (whereof he is acknowledged to have repreſented the Perſon in a Figure, becauſe of the Primacy he had among the Apoſtles) as that is, I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and if there be any like: ſo JUDAS ſuſtains, after a certain manner, the Perſon of the Jews, the Enemies of Chriſt, &c.

Here they of the Church of Rome are very forward to catch at theſe words, which ſignify a place of Priority that Peter had among the Apoſtles (which no body denies) but are not willing to take any notice of all the reſt; which utterly overthrow that Primacy which they would advance him unto from this place. For firſt, he ſays, ſome things do but ſeem to belong to Peter, which in truth ought to be referred to the Church. And ſecondly, That their Senſe is not clear or evident, till they be carried beyond him. Among which things, thirdly, he reckons what our Saviour here ſaith, I will give thee the Keys, &c. which they would now ingroſs to St. Peter, and have us believe this to be the plain and obvious ſenſe of Chriſt's words, which St. Auſtin ſays are not plain, unleſs we refer them to the Church. Whoſe Perſon (fourthly) he ſays he did bear or repreſent, not by virtue of his Place, or any Authority he had above the reſt, but in a Figure, to ſignify Unity, that is, as the Ancients interpret it. And it is farther remarkable, (fifthly) that Chriſt did not promiſe him the Primacy, in promiſing him the Keys, for he had the Primacy (here ſpoken of) before; and with reſpect to that Chriſt directed to him theſe words, rather than any of the reſt, becauſe he was already the firſt, not in Office, but in Order; and ſo the fitteſt Perſon to be ſingled out, to repreſent what Chriſt intended. And to convince every one there is no Authoritative Primacy meant in theſe words of St. Auſtin, he adds (ſixthly) that Judas ſuſtained the Perſon of Chriſt's Enemies, as Peter did of the Church. Will any body infer from hence, that Judas had a Juriſdiction over all the wicked, and left it to his Succeſſors, one of which hath now the ſame? Let them forbear then to make ſuch Inferences, from what is ſaid of St. Peter's Primacy, which gave him no right to rule, but only made him ſtand faireſt, being the firſt, to be choſen to repreſent the reſt. If any will be ſtill ſo perverſe as to wrangle, becauſe St. Auſtin doth not mention Judas his Primacy as he doth of Peter's; let them learn more Modeſty by knowing that Proſper, one of St. Auſtin's Scholars, upon the very ſame Pſalm, ſays in expreſs terms, thatJudas primatum geſſit inimicorum Chriſti. Judas carried the Primacy of Chriſt's Enemies. Which if they will not expound to ſignify a ſupreme Authority to govern Chriſt's Enemies, let them no longer interpret St. Peter's Primacy to ſignify ſuch an Authority over his Friends. He had none here promiſed him, is as certain as any thing can be; but the Keys to commend Unity, were promiſed him; which were in truth given to all the reſt. This is the ancient Senſe, which drew this plain and pertinent Obſervation from another honeſt Writer, in the Roman Communion,Rigaltius in Epiſt. Firmiliani. He ſaid to Peter, I will give thee the Keys, but he did not ſay, I will give them to thee alone.

Which is juſtified to be true, by three other Paſſages in the holy Goſpels. In the firſt of which, he promiſes as much to all in the very ſame words, as he had done to him. Matth. xviii. 18. Verily I ſay unto you, Whatſoever ye ſhall bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven: and whatſoever ye ſhall looſe on Earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven: which is the Explication, as you heard before, of the Power of the Keys, in the ſame terms, (without the leaſt difference but what is between the plural number and the ſingular) wherein it was delivered to St. Peter. And in the next Chapter he repeats it again, only in other words, when he ſaith Matth. xix. 28. Ye ſhall ſit upon XII Thrones, judging (i. e. ruling and governing) the XII Tribes of Iſrael; without any mention of one Throne, peculiar and higher than the reſt, to St. Peter. And thus far there is no more than a Promiſe to be met withal in the Goſpel, but no actual grant, no words whereby our Lord makes a conveyance of this Power to them, till after his Reſurrection from the Dead. When he gives out a Commiſſion to them, as large as can be made; wherein there is nothing peculiar reſerved to St. Peter, but it runs in general terms to them all, John xx. 21, 22, 23. For he neither ſaith, I ſend thee, nor breathed upon him alone, ſaying, Receive Thou the Holy Ghoſt: Whoſoever Sins thou remitteſt, &c. But he ſaith to them, being all ſave Thomas aſſembled together, As my Father hath ſent me, even ſo ſend I you. And when he had ſaid thus, he breathed on them, and ſaid unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt: Whoſoever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whoſoever Sins ye retain, they are retained. And accordingly, it may be added, when the Holy Ghoſt deſcended (of which this breathing on them was an Emblem and Pledg) they were all (Thomas with the reſt) with one accord in one place, and it was imparted to each of them alike, without any mark of diſtinction. For we read of no Flame that crowned the Head of St. Peter, greater and more illuſtrious than that upon his Brethren: but the Text ſaith, the Tongues, like as of Fire, were divided, and ſat upon every one of them ſingly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; Acts ii. 2, 3. The mighty Wind alſo, wherein this Flame came (betokening the powerful Inſpiration which was entring into them) filled all the Houſe where they were ſitting, and not only that Corner where St. Peter was placed. And ſo this Promiſe was equally performed in common to them all, as it had been made to them all. Nay, this very thing is no leſs than a demonſtration, that the Promiſe was intended to all, becauſe the Performance was to all.

That here his Promiſe was performed, is very manifeſt to thoſe, who are deſirous to underſtand the Truth: for no other time can be named when it was performed to Peter; nor any other words found, wherein the thing promiſed was conveyed, but theſe, as my Father ſent me, ſo I ſend you. And laſtly, this is the ſenſe of the Church, as appears by St. Cyprian in ancient times; who obſerves that our Lord, who ſaid to Peter, Thou art Peter, &c. gave to all his Apoſtles equal Power Parem Poteſtatem. after his Reſurrection, when he ſaid, As the living Father ſent me, ſo I ſend you, &c. concluding from thence, that all the Apoſtles were what St. Peter wasHoc uti que erant & caeteri Apoſtoli quod ſuit Petrus, pari conſortio praediti & honoris & poteſtatis, &c. L. de unitate Eccleſiae & Epiſt. xxiii. ad Jubianum.: And by Theophylact in later times, who thus gloſſes upon Matth. xvi. 19. Though our Lord ſaid only to Peter, I WILL GIVE THEE, yet they were given to all the Apoſtles. When? at that time when he ſaid, Whoſoever Sins ye remit they are remitted. For the word, I WILL GIVE, denotes the future time, that is, after the Reſurrection.

Then he ſaid to them all, As my Father hath ſent me, ſo I ſend you. Which are words ſo large that they contain in them a plenitude of Power; and confute the conceit of thoſe who ſay that Chriſt indeed gave the Power of remitting and retaining Sins to all the Apoſtles, but the Power of the Keys to Peter alone. Whereby if they meant that to Peter it was given to open the Gate firſt to the Gentiles, it ought to be allowed to be a true ſenſe; tho we are not certain it was the thing peculiarly intended by our Saviour in theſe words. But underſtanding thereby a diſtinct Power from that of binding and looſing, retaining and remitting, (which St. Peter exerciſed when he let the Gentiles into the Church) it is certainly falſe that he gave him ſuch a Power, which he did not confer upon the reſt. For ſhould we ſuppoſe binding and looſing to be diſtinct from the Power of the Keys, yet this Power of the Keys (be it what it will) we may be ſure is included in theſe comprehenſive words, As my Father hath ſent me, ſo I ſend you; which were ſpoken unto them all.

And therefore as the Keys were not promiſed to him alone; ſo not to him more than any other Apoſtle; but only the uſe of them firſt, before any other Apoſtle. That's the moſt (as I have often ſaid) which can reaſonably be conceived to be peculiarly promiſed to Peter in theſe words, that he ſhould firſt open the Door of Faith to the Gentiles, as we read he did, Acts x. and as ſome think to the Jews alſo, Acts ii. Tertullian L. de Pudicitiae c. xxi. ſeems to be of this mind (and I ſhall not here diſpute it) who mentioning this place, I will give thee the Keys, &c. thus proceeds; ſo the Event teaches us; the Church was firſt built on him; that is, by him. He firſt handled the Key. See what Key; Ye Men of Iſrael, hear theſe words: Jeſus of Nazareth a Man approved of God among you, &c. (Acts ii. 22, &c.) He in fine did firſt by the Baptiſm of Chriſt, unlock the entrance of the Heavenly Kingdom, &c. He bound Ananias with the Bond of Death; and he abſolved the Man lame of his Feet, from the weakneſs wherewith he laboured. And in the Diſpute which aroſe about the Obligation of the Law, Peter firſt of all by the inſtinct of the Holy Ghoſt (having told them how God made choice of him that the Gentiles ſhould hear the Word from his Mouth) ſaid, And now why tempt ye God, to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Diſciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear, &c. where he plainly makes the Power of the Keys, and binding and looſing to be the ſame thing: and from the ſcope of his Diſcourſe, it appears (as Launoy Epiſt. par. ii. Hadriano Vallantio, p. 6. hath obſerved) that they then believed at Rome that in the Perſon of Peter the Keys were given to the Church; that is, ſays he, the power of binding and looſing. Which things if the late Catholick Scripturiſt had known, or would have been pleaſed to mind, how could he have had the Confidence to ſay, that our Lord ſpake theſe words to Peter to ſignify, that he was the Head and Chief in ordinary. For tho the Power of binding and looſing was afterward given to the other Apoſtles, yet the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are never in Scripture ſaid to be given to any but to St. PeterThe ſeventh Point, n. 6. . By which Keys alſo he ſaith is ſignified, the plentitude of higheſt Power: For this vain Conceit is contrary to the common Opinion of the ancient Fathers (whom they are bound by their Profeſſion of Faith and Oath, to follow) contrary to their greateſt Schoolmen, (ſuch as Scotus, Aquinas, Alex. Alenſis) who affirm that the Keys promiſed to Peter in St. Matth. xvi. were given to all the Apoſtles in St. John xx. contrary alſo to their own Catechiſm (as I have ſhown) according to which he ought to have inſtructed his Followers.

The Sum of what hath been ſaid is this: 1. The Power which our Lord here promiſed to Peter, was not meant to him alone. 2. For he did but repreſent and ſuſtain the Perſon of the Church (as the Ancients ſpeak) to whom this Promiſe belongs. 3. And therefore our Lord afterward promiſes the very ſame thing, in the ſame words to all the Apoſtles, which he here promiſes to Peter. 4. And accordingly when he performed his Promiſe, he gave this Power to every one of them equally. 5. But Chriſt directed this Promiſe at the firſt ſingularly to him, that he might commend Ʋnity. 6. Or, at the moſt, he promiſed him the Honour, of opening the Door of Faith firſt unto the Gentiles. 7. From whence we can only gather that he was the firſt among the Apoſtles; but not that he was promiſed any Power which the reſt had not: for the contrary is apparent. 8. To all which I muſt add (repeating briefly what I ſaid upon the foregoing words) that if we ſhould grant our Saviour to have promiſed ſome Power to Peter (when he ſaid, I will give thee the Keys) which the other Apoſtles had not; it would prove a perſonal Prerogative, and cannot be ſhewn to have deſcended to any Succeſſor, much leſs to the Pope of Rome; who, Bellarmine ſaith, is a true Prince, who hath Power to make true Laws to bind the whole Church. And this he proves from theſe words, Whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven, &c.L. iv. de Rom. Pontif. c. xvi.

Concerning which it will be thought too ſharp perhaps to ſay (tho they are the words of one in the Roman CommunionLaunoy ubi ſupra, p. 77.) ſimply to relate the words of this Author, is ſimply to confute them; they are ſo very contrary to Truth and Equity. The Reader therefore may be pleaſed briefly to conſider, what our Lord himſelf ſaith to all his Apoſtles, Matth. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. which utterly overturns theſe proud Pretenſions. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Maſter, even Chriſt; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN. And call no Man your Father upon the Earth; for one is your Father which is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Maſters, for one is your Maſter, even Chriſt. The repetition of one and the ſame thing ſo often, in words of the ſame import, argues it to be a matter of great moment, which ought to be duly weighed. And it is this, that no Man, no not any of his Apoſtles, ſhould take upon him to preſcribe that as a part of Religion, which God our Saviour hath not preſcribed by his Laws: and that we ought not abſolutely to ſubmit to any Man's Dictates, as Children do to the Will of their Fathers; nor pin our Faith, as we ſpeak, upon any Man's ſleeve; i. e. let it depend intirely upon his Authority: For this is a ſubmiſſion which is due only to God our Saviour, (who in this Senſe of the words) is our only Father, and Maſter, and Leader; and therefore we cannot, without the higheſt injury to him, own any one elſe to be ſuch, nor give them theſe Names; but as they teach, not their own, but Chriſt's Doctrine unto Men. And in this Office all the Apoſtles were equal, and no one of them could claim an Authority over the reſt of his Brethren.

There are many other places wherein we read of one Shepherd, one Lord, one Lawgiver, who is able to ſave and to deſtroy: from whence we may conclude that Peter himſelf had no Power to make, but only to declare the Laws of his and our Lord and Lawgiver, Jeſus Chriſt. So the words of Chriſt's Commiſſion run, when he ſaith, not to him alone, but to them all, Go ye, and diſciple all Nations, &c. teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you, Matth. xxviii. 20. Here is their Authority, to publiſh the Commands of their Maſter, not what they pleaſed to command themſelves. Which Peter was ſo far from doing, that he went not about the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, and the calling of the Gentiles, till he was authorized by an heavenly Viſion; which diſcovered this Myſtery to him, as a part of the Counſel of God, but no Law, nor ſo much as a Thought of his own. For being charged afterwards by the Jews for eating with Men uncircumciſed, he excuſes himſelf by a long Apology, wherein he relates how he was commanded to do it by God himſelf, whom he could not withſtand (Acts xi. 3, 4, &c.) which was not done like a Lawgiver. Nay, after this Revelation made to him, he was ſo weak as to obſerve this Law, to the great Offence of the Gentiles; for which he was reprehended by St. Paul, who had the honour to abrogate the Law of Moſes among the Gentiles while St. Peter (who began that work) was the Miniſter of the Circumciſion: Gal. ii. 7, 10, 11, &c.

Nor doth the word [Bind] import a Power to impoſe Laws, but only to tie Men to thoſe Laws which are already made. Thus it ſignifies in that very place, which Bellarmine alledges to maintain his Senſe of the word, viz. to make Laws: Matth. xxiii. 4. For they bind heavy Burdens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on Men's Shoulders, &c. that is, they were rigorous Interpreters of the Laws of God, which it was their Office to expound, according to the plain ſenſe and meaning of them, and not according to the Traditions of the Elders, which had made them intollerable Burdens.

But ſuppoſe the word to ſignify what they pleaſe, it will do them no ſervice; becauſe this Power of Binding was not promiſed to Peter alone, but to them all, as hath been before proved. And conſequently he could do nothing, which they could not do as much as he; that is, they were all Miniſters of Chriſt, and Stewards of the Myſteries of God: All of them like to Eliakim, 1 Cor. iv. 1. to whom the Key of the Houſe of David is promiſed, as the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. For by that very word which we tranſlate Stewards, or Diſpenſers, is that Office 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . to which Eliakim was advanced in the room of Shebna, expreſſed by the LXX. in Iſa. xxii. 19, 21. which was not a Supreme Power in the Court, where all the reſt of the Courtiers did not depend on him as their Lord and Prince; but the Power of a prime Miniſter in the Royal Family, which he governed not after his own Will, but the King's. In like manner all the Apoſtles were Miniſters, by whom Men believed (1 Cor. iii. 5.) Stewards of the heavenly Myſteries, which they faithfully diſpenſed (1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.) according to the Will of Chriſt, who hath the Key of David; that is, is the ſole Supreme Governour of the Church, and gives Rules to it; which the Apoſtles delivered, but did not ordain themſelves, nor bind upon Men by their own Authority, but by his. For they were not Authors of the Divine Laws, which they taught, but the Publiſhers of them, and equal Publiſhers of one and the ſame common Doctrine: Which every Biſhop in the Church hath as much Authority to bind upon Men as the Pope: They being all of the ſame Merit and Prieſthood (as St. Hierom Epiſt. ad Evagrium. ſpeaks) all Succeſſors of the Apoſtles.

There are ſome other words of St. Hierom (it may not be unfit here to note) which are uſually alledged to prove the contrary, viz. That he thought St. Peter had ſome Supremacy of Power over the reſt of the Apoſtolical Colledg; from whence they hope to derive the like Power unto the Pope over all Biſhops: They are in his firſt Book againſt Jovinian, where he ſaith, One among the twelve was therefore choſen, that an HEAD being conſtituted, the occaſion of Schiſm might be removed. But they are unconſcionably diſingenuous who alledg this Paſſage, and do not give us the entire Sentence, but only this Concluſion of it; which can have no ſuch meaning as they pretend, without making meer Nonſenſe of the words foregoing, which are theſe. But thou ſayſt, the Church was founded upon Peter; tho the very ſame in another place is done upon all the Apoſtles, and they received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the ſtrength of the Church is ſolidly bottom'd upon them EQƲALLY. And then follows the words now named, Yet ONE was therefore choſen among the XII, &c. which makes it as clear as the Sun, that he dreamt of no ſuch HEADSHIP of ONE over all the reſt, as ſignifies a Supremacy of Power: for what one Text, he ſaith, affirms of Peter, another affirms of them all; they all receiving the Keys (which is the higheſt Power) and the ſtability of the Church relying upon them equally.

I conclude this part of my Diſcourſe with the Obſervation of a late Learned Writer of our Church Dr. Hammond's Diſpatcher diſpatch'd, P. iii. c. 7. Sect. 2. n. 13.. If any Power or degree of Power was here promiſed to Peter, more than to the reſt of the Apoſtles, it muſt be gathered either from the force of the Subſtance of the Promiſe, or from the Circumſtances wherewith it was delivered.

The Subſtantial part is nothing elſe but that of a Steward in the Church, ſet forth by the Emblem of Keys, and more explicitly declared by the Power of binding and looſing; which carries in it no intimation of ſuch a thing as a Supremacy over the whole Church, but only of a ruling Power in ſome Family; that is, in that part of the Univerſal Church where his lot ſhould fall. For this very thing being preſently after promiſed to all the Apoſtles, it makes it evident, there was no Supremacy here promiſed; for then there muſt be not one, but twelve Supremes.

As for the Circumſtances, wherein this part and the former of our Saviour's Promiſe was delivered (which ſome are pleaſed to urge as very conſiderable) they are of no ſtrength to ſupport ſo great a weight as they lay upon them. For firſt, It is very unreaſonable that Circumſtances ſhould be thought of greater force to declare the meaning of this Promiſe, than the very Subſtance it ſelf is. And ſecondly, All theſe Circumſtances (ſave only that of his own Name and his Fathers joyned together) are not peculiar to him, but common to others, who confeſſed Chriſt's Divinity, and had it revealed from God, and were bleſſed, and deſigned for Stones in the Fabrick of the Church, as well as Peter. And further, even that Circumſtance of calling him Simon Barjona had a viſible reaſon for it, to diſtinguiſh this Simon from Simon Zelotes. So that there is nothing left but the ſmall Circumſtance of calling him by his Name, to be the grand Foundation of St. Peter's Supremacy.

Can any one be ſatisfied with ſuch poor Proofs? Which are no better than if we ſhould argue in this manner, our Lord ſaid to Peter, Follow me, and ſo he did to the other eleven, and by this made them his Diſciples in common. But had he ſaid, Simon Barjona, Follow thou me, (as he might very well, if any other Simon were then preſent) he alone (according to this way of diſcourſing) had been taken into Diſcipleſhip, and none after him enjoyed this Honour.

But I have ſaid enough, if not too much, upon theſe Texts; and muſt here end this Paper, for fear of ſwelling it beyond the intended bulk. The reſt ſhall ſoon follow.

ERRATA. PAge 81. line 21. for will be, read were. P. 83. l. 31. r. underſtood. P. 85. l. 10. del. of, l. ult. r. walk on. P. 88. penult. r. falſified. P. 93. l. 29. del. of before Peter's.

LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chiſwel at the Roſe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688.

The Second Part. The TEXTS examined which Papiſts cite out of the Bible, TO PROVE The Supremacy of St. PETER and of the POPE over the whole Church.

IMPRIMATUR.

Guil. Needham. Febr. 14. 1687.

III.

NOw we are come to the laſt reſerve of the Roman Church, for the ſupport of this Cauſe; which lies in thoſe Words of Chriſt to Peter, John xxi. 15, 16, 17. Feed my Lambs, and feed my Sheep. They are ſenſible of the truth of that, which hath been oft repeated, that in neither of the former places Chriſt gave any thing to Peter; but only promiſed he would give him ſuch things as are there mentioned. Now they are hard put to it, to find when he did perform this Promiſe; and not find with all, that he performed it to all the Apoſtles: and therefore, as I have ſaid, made it to them all. Here is the only Place they rely upon; here they would fain find, what is no where elſe to be found, ſomething peculiarly granted to Peter, which was conferred upon none of the reſt. Read the words, ſay they, and obſerve how they are peculiarly ſpoken to Peter: So when they had dined, Jeſus ſaid to Simon Peter, Simon Son of Jonas, loveſt thou theſe me more than theſe? He ſaith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knoweſt I love thee. He ſaith unto him, FEED MY LAMBS. He ſaith to him again the ſecond time, Simon Son of Jonas, loveſt thou me? He ſaith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knoweſt that I love thee. He ſaith unto him, FEED MY SHEEP. He ſaith unto him the third time, Simon Son of Jonas, loveſt thou me? Peter was grieved becauſe he ſaid unto him the third time, Loveſt thou me? And he ſaid unto him, Lord, thou knoweſt all things; thou knoweſt that I love thee. Jeſus ſaith unto him, FEED MY SHEEP.

See, ſay they, with what Solemnity our Lord here ſpeaks to Peter, and to him alone, calling him three times particularly by his Name and Relation, and bidding him as oft, feed his Lambs or Sheep; whereby he inſtated him in the Office he had promiſed him, and made him, in a particular manner, to be a Paſtor, even the Paſtor of the whole Church, with a Supreme Power over it.

Firſt; To which we reply, That having ſeen and conſidered all this, we can ſee nothing here that looks like a Grant or Commiſſion; nothing given to St. Peter by theſe words; which are a plain Charge or Command, requiring him to do his Office, which was therefore conferred upon him before, together with the reſt of the Apoſtles, when our Lord ſaid, As my Father hath ſent me, ſo I ſend you, &c. Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt, &c.

Secondly; And as here is no Commiſſion, no Conveyance of any thing made to him, but a bare Precept to do his Duty: So the Duty doth not concern him alone, but belongs to them all as much as him. It is at this time required in a Precept directed to him alone, that's true: and Bellarmine might have ſpared all his Labour to prove, that theſe words were ſpoken to Peter alone. They were ſo, if we underſtand thereby that he only by Name, is now admoniſhed of his Duty; (the reaſon of which we ſhall ſee preſently) but the Duty of which he was admoniſhed was not peculiar to him; and ſo the words do not belong to him alone, as appears by many Arguments.

1. From St. Peter himſelf, who ſeems to have interpreted the Mind of Chriſt in this Speech to him, in his words to the Elders of the Church to whom he wrote; 1 Pet. v. 1. The Elders, which are among you, I exhort, who am, What? the Monarch of the Church? the Vicar of Chriſt? Or Paſtor of Paſtors? The Chief Apoſtle? Or Supreme Biſhop? No ſuch thing, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , your fellow Elder, &c. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, &c. And from whom did theſe Elders receive their Power and Authority? From St. Peter? No ſuch matter, but from the chief Shepherd or Paſtor, from whom he bids them expect their. Reward, ver. 4.

2. In like manner St. Paul gives the very ſame Charge to the Elders of Epheſus, to take heed to themſelves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overſeers, to FEED the Church of God, which he hath purchaſed with his own Blood. Acts xx. 28.

3. For Chriſt, as I ſaid, had given this Power unto all his Apoſtles, when he ſaid, As my Father hath ſent me, ſo I ſend you, &c. Joh. xx. 21. What did he ſend them to do? but to gather together in one, the Children of God that were ſcattered abroad, and to feed his Flock, as He the good Shepherd had done, Joh. x. 11. & xi. 52. And therefore we may ſay here of theſe words, as Rigaltius doth of the former; He ſaid to Peter, Feed my Sheep; but he doth not ſay, do thou alone feed them. No; it may be further obſerved, that our Lord in his Life-time, ſent them all to the loſt Sheep of the Houſe of Iſrael; Matth. x. 6, 7. And, a little before this, ſeeing the People ſcattered abroad as Sheep having no Shepherd, he bad his Diſciples pray that the Lord would ſend Labourers among them: not one (who ſhould depute others) but as many as were needful to gather in his Harveſt. Matth. ix. 36, &c.

4. And therefore thus the ancient Fathers have expounded theſe words, particularly the Roman Clergy themſelves in their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage, where admoniſhing them of their Duty, (in the abſence of St. Cyprian by reaſon of the then Perſecution) they preſs them with theſe words to Peter; Feed my Sheep; which, they tell them, the reſt of the Diſciples in like manner did, and accordingly it was now incumbent upon them alſoVice Paſtoris cuſtodire gregem., in the room of the Paſtor to keep the Flock.

This Launoy Epiſt. Par. ii. ad Raimundum Formentinum, p. 27, &c. proves is the Expoſition of the Church, and moſt juſtly condemns Bellarmine (and ſuch like Flatterers) as failing in his Duty: Which required him to expound theſe words according to the Senſe of the whole Church, which is directly againſt this Expoſition, that Chriſt here gave this Power to Peter alone. A great many of the ancient Popes of Rome, he there ſhews, ſpeak otherwiſe; and one of their Neighbours, St. Ambroſe, expreſly declares, that thoſe Sheep, and that Flock which Chriſt bad Peter feed, he did not alone receive, but he both received them with us, and with him we all received them L. de Sacerd. dignit. c. 2.. As much as to ſay, what Chriſt ſaid to Peter, he ſpake in him to all Biſhops. Which is the Senſe of St. Auſtin in a great many places (the ſame Author ſhowsLaunoy Epiſt. pars v. Carolo Magiſtro.) making Peter here alſo to have repreſented the whole Church: ſo that when it was ſaid to him, it was ſaid to all, Loveſt thou me? Feed my Sheep De Agone Chriſtiano cap. 30..

5. But what need any further Teſtimonies? when this Preface is ſung not only in the Feaſt of St. Peter, but of all the reſt of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts (except St. John) and on their Octaves in the Roman Church at this very day; We humbly beſeech thee, O Lord, the Eternal Paſtor, not to forſake thy Flock, but preſerve it with continued Protection, by thy bleſſed Apoſtles: That it may be governed by the ſame Rulers, which as VICARS of thy Work, thou didſt beſtow upon it, to be ſet PASTORS over it. This is ſufficient to ſhew that the Roman Church it ſelf hath anciently believed, this Charge was given to all the Apoſtles to feed his Flock, and be the chief Paſtors of it Praeeſſe Paſtores..

What? will ſome ſay, was there nothing here peculiarly ſpoken to Peter? No Myſtery in thoſe words thrice repeated, and ſpecially directed to him by name, as you cannot but acknowledg? Yes, no doubt; but it is no more than this, that Peter of all the reſt, had lately thrice denied his Maſter. This might well have made Peter himſelf queſtion his Love to Chriſt; and move our Lord to ask him whether he ſtill remained as confident as he was before, that he had a greater Affection to him than any of his Diſciples. For ſo he begins this Speech, Loveſt thou me more than theſe? As he had fancied he did, when he ſaid, tho all Men ſhall be offended becauſe of thee, yet will I never be offended; Matth. xxvi. 33. The vanity of which thoughts he had found by ſad Experience, he alone denying, nay abjuring his Maſter. In this Peter was ſingular, and did more than any of the reſt. For which cauſe more was to be ſaid to him, and more was to be done by him, than any of them. He was to anſwer thrice to three Queſtions, which were ſolemnly put to him, that by a threefold Confeſſion, he might obliterate his threefold denial.

This is all the Myſtery which the ancient Chriſtians could find in this ſolemn Speech, made with particular Application to Peter, as may be ſeen in St. Cyril of Alexandria In John xxi., St. Auſtin Tract. xlvii. in Johan., Greg. Nazianzen Tract. xxix., and a long train, which I could ſet down, of other Fathers; which aſſures us that this was the common and literal Expoſition of theſe words, and that they underſtood no other reaſon why our Lord addreſſed himſelf only to Peter, tho other Apoſtles were preſent, but only this; that he might declare he would have Peter notwithſtanding his denying him thrice, be confident, upon this profeſſion of Love to him, he was reſtored to his Favour, and that he would have him no leſs than the reſt, look upon the care of his Flock as belonging to him, who had deſerved by his ſhamefully repeated denial of him, to fall from that Office, more than any other of his Apoſtles. For tho they all fled, yet none denied him but Peter alone; and therefore theſe words were as if our Lord had ſaid, Tho there be cauſe enough for me to reject thee, yet becauſe thou didſt repent thee of thy Sin, and doſt now profeſs thy Love to me, Feed my Sheep, no leſs than the reſt of my Apoſtles to whom I have committed the care of them; which will ſufficiently expoſe the vanity of the Catholick Scripturiſt Seventh's Point, n. 7., who bids us (againſt the ſenſe of all Antiquity) to note that our Lord would not have required greater Love in Peter rather than in any of the reſt, nor have ſaid, Loveſt thou me more than theſe? if he had not here intended to give him higher dignity in Paſtorſhip than the reſt. Note rather, good Reader, what hath been ſaid, and theſe words of St. Cyril, who was a better Scripturiſt, and more Catholick than this Jeſuit. I will not ſet them down at large, but only the Concluſion of them, which are very remarkable, and expreſly expound this Paſſage as I have done. In that Speech of our Lord, FEED MY SHEEP, there was a kind of renewal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. L. xii. in Joh. p. 1120. of the Apoſtleſhip formerly beſtowed upon him; doing away the Infamy his of Falls, and blotting out the cowardiſe of human Infirmity. Where a great Perſon of our own hath juſtly remarked that word renewal Bp Andrew Tortura Tort, p. 51.: He doth not ſay that our Lord augmented his Dignity (which is the new Doctrine) but that he renewed it, or reſtored him to it. Which Dignity he had ſaid (in the beginning of this Diſcourſe) Peter was advanced unto, when our Lord named him, not praealiis, above others, but cum aliis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Cyril. Ib., with other Diſciples, to be an Apoſtle; and therefore now did not give him more than the reſt, but only declared he did not take the forfeiture he had made of that Dignity, but re-inſtated him in it, together with the reſt.

This is undoubtedly the ancient Senſe of Chriſt's Church; to which I know not what to add for the Explication of theſe words, unleſs it be this, that Peter had, juſt before this Diſcourſe of our Lord's, begun to expreſs his earneſt deſire to recover his Favour; caſting himſelf into the Sea (when the other Diſciples came by the Ship) to get to our Saviour; which may be look'd upon as a token of exceſſive Love to him, and of a more than ordinary deſire to enjoy his Company. From hence a very learned WriterDr. Jackſon Book iii. upon the Creed, c. 7. of this Church, thinks our Lord takes occaſion to make this Speech to him (but whether to check or to cheriſh that deſire he dares not determine) the import of which he gives in this Paraphraſe. Thou haſt made profeſſion of more than ordinary Love to me, of readineſs to lay down thy Life for my ſake, tho all others, even theſe thy Fellows, ſhould forſake me; and art willing, I ſee, by thy preſent hazard of it, to make good thy former words. But wouldſt thou have me yet to ſhew thee a more excellent way? I have told it thee long ſince; Thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy Bretren. SIMON the Son of JONA, if thou deſireſt to prove thy ſelf a CEPHAS, or teſtify the ſincerity of thy Faith and Love (which by the Powers of darkneſs were of late ſo grievouſly ſhaken) FEED MY LAMBS, FEED MY SHEEP. Yea, ſeeing thou thrice deniedſt the Shepherd of thy Soul, I ſay unto thee the third time, FEED MY SHEEP. Let the Memory of thy fore-paſſed threefold Sin; alſo let this my preſent threefold admonition, excite thee unto triple diligence in thy Charge to ſhew ſuch pity and compaſſion, as I have ſhewed 〈8 pages missing〉 if you do but ſo contrive it that Peter have all under his Care, and the Apoſtles themſelves be his Curates.

But they who can be pleaſed with ſuch Conceits as theſe, have little Reverence for the Holy Scriptures; and it is a great Affront unto our Underſtandings to offer us meer Imaginations for Reaſons; their own Dreams inſtead of the Divine Oracles. If it may conſiſt with Chriſtian Sobriety, to make ſuch a nice diſtinction between Lambs and Sheep, as to make them imply different things (any more than the two ſeveral words for feed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ., and for loveſt thou me, are thought to do) it is far more likely that our Lord intended to ſignify the Care that ought to be taken of all Chriſtians ſuitable to the diverſity of their States. Some of which (as a great ManDr. Jacks. B. 3. c. vii. Sect. x. of our own Church ſpeaks) are to be handled tenderly, and cheriſhed like Lambs; others to be look'd unto like elder Sheep, and to be fed with ſtronger Meat, but with leſs perſonal or aſſiduous Attendance.

This hath ſome ſenſe in it, which is very uſeful, and agreeable to all Mens Thoughts: but if we ſet our fancies on work, they abound with vain Conceits of which we can find no end. For if Lambs, and Lambkins, and Sheep only be St. Peter's Walk, and he the Shepherd, where are the Rams? (as a no leſs learnedDr. Collin's EPPHATA. p. 51. than ingenious Man asks) they are excepted it ſeems, and Rams, as Turrianus fancies, are the Apoſtles, or their Succeſſors, that is, Biſhops: or, as Cardinal Tolet In xv. Joh, Annot. 3.(Bellarmin's Equal) will have it, they are Kings and Princes: and ſo theſe two, Apoſtles and Kings are by this Interpretation both ſhut out; whom Bellarmine intended by his Device to have ſhut into Peter's Fold.

But the graver ſort of Writers even in the Roman Church, are aſhamed of ſuch Myſteries as theſe; which they ſee may be invented at pleaſure. Maldonate in Joh. xxi. 15, &c. himſelf (to ſay nothing of Janſenius) bids thoſe, who ſubtilly enquire, why Chriſt calls his Diſciples Lambs, rather than Sheep, think again and again what they do, and take heed leſt they expoſe themſelves to the laughter of the Learned: for the difference is in word, not in ſenſe; ſave only that the word Lamb hath ſomething in it more ſoft and tender, and might be uſed to commend them the more to Peter's Affection. For this diminutive form of ſpeech is a ſign of very tender and ardent Love, and more moving than any other; as appears by the common inſtance of a dying Father, who expreſſes more of his own Affection, and works more upon his Friends, if he ſays, I commend to you the Care of my little Babes, than if he ſimply ſays, I commend the Care of my Children to you: Whence it is our Saviour ſometimes uſed this form, juſt before he parted with his Diſciples, John xiii. 33. Little Children, yet a little while I am with you, &c. and his Apoſtles alſo, particularly St. John, who uſes it ſeven times in his firſt Epiſtle, to declare the Greatneſs and Tenderneſs of his Love, and to excite the like in others.

That WriterMaldonate. indeed purſues no leſs than the other, the pretenſions of the Church of Rome from theſe words; though he like not this Curioſity: inſiſting upon Chriſt's committing all the Sheep, (i. e. all Chriſtians) to Peter. Which will not do their buſineſs, ſince they were no otherwiſe committed to him than they were to the reſt of Chriſt's Apoſtles: who had the ſame Power given them, and were to take the ſame Care of all Chriſt's Flock that he did. Not that every one of them was to feed or teach all Chriſtians, ſimply and univerſally underſtood; for that was impoſſible, and would have made the Labours of the reſt uſeleſs, if one were ſufficient: but all indefinitely, ſo that among them none ſhould be neglected, but inſtructed by ſome or other of them. This muſt neceſſarily be the meaning: for otherwiſe, our Lord bad Peter do that which could not be done by one Man; or, if it could have been done, would have made all the other Apoſtles idle, and left them nothing to do.

No, ſay they, we do not mean that Peter alone was to preach the Goſpel to all Nations; ſo he could not feed all; but this ſort of feeding muſt be allowed to others: but he alone was to rule and govern in chief, to feed by Authority and Power over all, whereby he was to preſcribe what was to be taught and believed.

But this is to return where we were before, to the ſignification of the Word Feed; which cannot mean one thing with reſpect to Peter, and another with reſpect to the reſt: but ſignifies the ſame Power, be it what it will, common to them all. If this need any further Explication, thoſe Words of our Lord, Go, and teach all Nations, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go ye into all the World, and preach the Goſpel unto every Creature, Mark xvi. 15. will ſatisfy us that Peter had no peculiar Authority conferred on him, above the other Apoſtles. For he gave this Charge to them all, and it was uſhered in with a far more magnificent Preface to it, than when he ſpake here particularly to Peter; for he firſt acquaints them with his own Supreme Authority, ſaying, All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth, and then adds, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, &c. which is a Commiſſion as large as could be given to Men; including in it all the Power that was neceſſary for the eſtabliſhing and governing thoſe Churches which they ſhould gather unto Chriſt.

Who can think that they who had this Authority given them, were themſelves to be taught and governed by Peter alone? Nothing could put ſuch a Conceit into Mens Minds, but an ambitious deſire to advance themſelves to the higheſt Dominion, by raiſing Peter above all others: Who, it is evident, did not take themſelves to be all inferiour to him; nor to be leſs able to feed him, than he was to feed them. For St. Paul (who was herein inferiour that he was called late to be an Apoſtle, as one born out of due time) did take upon him to feed Peter, and that with his Staff too (if I may ſo ſpeak) that is, with his Reproof; and this at Antioch, St. Peter's own Seat: Where it had been very proper for him one would think, to have ſtood upon his peculiar Prerogative, if he had known of any belonging to him.

Which if he could have challenged, we ſhould ſtill be to ſeek by what right the Biſhop of Rome claims the ſame Authority that St. Peter had. O ſays Boniface the VIIIthExtravagant. L. 1. Tit. 8. de Major. & Obedientia., Chriſt ſpake to Peter and to his Succeſſors, when he ſaid, FEED MY SHEEP. But how doth he prove that? Why, we muſt take his bare word for it, both that he ſpake theſe words to Peter's Succeſſors, and to them alone, and that the Biſhops of Rome are his ſole Succeſſors: All this he delivers as an infallible Dictator, and it is not good manners to queſtion that the Univerſal Flock of Chriſt is ſo committed to them, that whether Greeks or others ſhall ſay, they are not committed to Peter and his Succeſſors, they must neceſſarily confeſs they are none of the SHEEP of Chriſt. But it is worth any bodies while to read on to the end of that Extravagant where he aſſerts this: whereby they will be infallibly ſatisfied he was no infallible Interpreter, but a groſs Perverter of the Holy Scriptures. For here it is that he proves in the Church there is both the Spiritual and the Temporal Power, from thoſe Words, Behold here are two Swords, Luk. xxii. 38. and that the Temporal Power is ſubject to the Spiritual, becauſe the Powers that are, are ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1.) for they would not be in order, unleſs Sword were under Sword, and Spiritual things are ſuperiour to Temporal. For the Prophecy of Jeremy is verified of the Church and the Eccleſiaſtical Power, ch. i. 10. Behold, I have ſet thee this day over the Nations, and over the Kingdoms, to root up, and pull down, &c. Therefore the Temporal Power, if it go out of the way, muſt be judged by the Spiritual; but the Supreme Spiritual Power, by God alone, not by Man; as the Apoſtle bears witneſs, 1 Cor. ii. 15. He that is Spiritual judgeth all things, but he himſelf is judged of no Man. After all which goodly Interpretation of Holy Scriptures (more like Paſquill than the Pope) he concludes moſt pontifically, We declare, affirm, define and pronounce, that it is altogether neceſſary to Salvation, for every humane Creature to be ſubject to the Pope of Rome.

This is his Concluſion from FEED MY SHEEP, and from other Places of Scripture, expounded after the very ſame faſhion as he abuſes this: Which tho it be very preſumptuous, yet is not too arrogant for him who could entertain ſuch a monſtrous Conceit, as this which we read in one of his Decrees Sexti Decret. L. 1. Tit. vi. cap. xvii. Fundamenta. . Where he ſays, Chriſt made Peter the Chief, that from him, as from a certain Head, he might diffuſe, as it were, his Gifts into the whole Body; for that having taken him IN CONSORTIƲM INDIVIDƲAE TRINITATIS, into the Partnerſhip of the undivided Trinity: He would have him called that which the Lord himſelf was, ſaying, THOƲ ART PETER, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church. Now if Peter be thus exalted into the Conſortſhip of the Bleſſed Trinity, and the Pope have a juſt claim unto all that belongs to Peter; then is the Pope no leſs than OUR LORD GOD, as ſome of the Canoniſts have called him; unto whom Boniface might well conclude all muſt be ſubject upon pain of Damnation.

I conclude this whole Diſcourſe with theſe three Obſervations; which are better grounded than their proud Decrees.

Firſt, It is worth conſidering, that this lofty Structure which they have erected in the Church of Rome, of the Supremacy of their Biſhop, is built barely upon three Metaphorical Speeches of our Saviour unto St. Peter, without one word or ſyllable concerning the Biſhop of Rome, or any other Succeſſor. One would have expected that a thing of this mighty moment ſhould have had a ſtronger Foundation, and been delivered in plainer words, than upon this Rock, I will give thee the Keys, and, Feed my Sheep: and that we ſhould have been told alſo in down-right terms, who ſhould inherit the ſupreme Power, ſuppoſed to be conferred by theſe Metaphorical Speeches when he was dead and gone; eſpecially, if all Chriſtians in the World muſt neceſſarily, upon pain of Damnation, be ſubject to Peter's Succeſſor.

And yet ſo it is, this is all, that a Wit of ſuch height as Bellarmine's (who is wont to ſcrape up all that any way ſeems to make for his purpoſe) durſt venture to alledg out of the Holy Scriptures for the proof of ſo weighty a Point.

The Rhemiſts indeed in their Annotations upon the New Teſtament, make bold with two places more, which they apply to this buſineſs; but with ſo little Reaſon (not to ſay ſo ridiculouſly) that he had the diſcretion to let them alone.

One is in St. Matthew xiv. 29. where, upon the word walked, they have this wiſe Note. Peter (ſaith St. Bernard) walking upon the Waters as Chriſt did, DECLARED himſelf the ONLY VICAR of Chriſt: which ſhould be Ruler not over one People, but over ALL: For many Waters are many People. And from hence he deduceth the like Authority and Juriſdiction, to his Succeſſors the Biſhops of Rome.

And a goodly Deduction it is, for which they are mightily beholden to St. Bernard, who could ſpy ſuch a notable Declaration of St. Peter's ſole Vicarſhip, and draw from thence ſuch a fine Argument for the Pope's Authority, as no ancient Doctor beſides himſelf was able to find in this place. But muſt his Fancies paſs for ſubſtantial Proofs of the Biſhop of Rome's Supremacy, which was raiſed to a great height in his days? At this rate no body need want Proofs for the moſt deteſtable Hereſies, which he ſhall pleaſe to deviſe, if ſuch Conceits as theſe be allowed for Arguments.

And their ſecond Annotation is like to this, of which, for ought I know, they may have the honour to be the Inventors, without the help of St. Bernard. For becauſe our Saviour, when there were two Ships, went in that which was Simon's (Luke v. 3.) and thence taught the People, they gravely conclude, that undoubtedly he taught out of that Ship and not the other, on purpoſe to ſignify the Church reſembled by Peter's Ship, and that in it is the Chair of Chriſt, and only true preaching. By which, it is evident, they intended the Reader ſhould underſtand, that as Peter was Owner of that Ship, ſo he and his Succeſſors are Rulers of the whole Church. For upon the following Verſes (ver. 7, 10.) they obſerve how Peter had ſo much work, that he was fain to call for help, and joyned thoſe who were in the other Ship as Co-partners in the Preaching of the Goſpel. As much as to ſay, the Work was committed to him alone, who took in ſuch help as he needed. He was the only Paſtor, and all the reſt (as was ſaid before) his Curates. For, they tell us, all this aforeſaid did properly mean, his Travels in the Converſion of the World, and his Prerogative therein before all Men; as is evident by Chriſt's ſpecial Promiſe made to him SEVERALLY and APART in this place, that he ſhould be made the TAKER OF MEN. What then became of all the reſt? Were they to ſit ſtill in their Ship and do nothing? O no, by no means; He giveth to other (ſay theſe Annotators) the like Office as to Peter's Co-operators and Coadjutors.

Before they ſaid that Peter called them and joyned them to himſelf, as Co-partners in the preaching of the Goſpel; but now having better, it ſeems, bethought themſelves, they ſay Chriſt appointed them to this Office; yet ſtill they are but as Peter's Co-operators, and Aſſiſtants. He was the Taker of Men, and converted the World; they only came in to his help, and brought all the Fiſh into his Net. Their Ship ſignified nothing, it was Peter alone that ſignified all. Their Ship ſtands for a meer Cypher; his Ship is the Figure of the whole Church, where he governs, and they are but helps in Government, meer Co-adjutors unto him, the great, and indeed, only Biſhop over all.

Who can endure ſuch Annotations as theſe, in which Men play with the Holy Scriptures as they pleaſe, and play with them in ſo ſaucy a manner, as to interpret them directly againſt the Scriptures. In which the Apoſtles call themſelves Workers together with Chriſt (2 Cor. vi. 1.) imployed by him to be his Co-operators, not St. Peter's; who was ſo far from being the Converter of the World, that his Travels and Pains were moſt beſtowed in the leaſt part of it. Which Bellarmine, I ſuppoſe, ſaw well enough, and therefore was ſo wiſe, as not to mention ſuch Allegories. Which may ſerve to entertain the Fancies of ſilly People, but are the juſt ſcorn of thoſe that have any meaſure of Spiritual Underſtanding: Who have heard perhaps, that the Fathers ſometimes reſembled the Church of Chriſt to Peter's Ship; but not that they ever dream'd of making him, and the Biſhop of Rome after him, the Governour of the whole Church, becauſe he was Maſter of that Ship.

There is nothing more unaccountable than ſuch a Concluſion, unleſs it be their pretence to Infallibility, who are meer Triflers when they meddle with the Holy Scriptures; which is the next thing I would have obſerved.

Secondly; If the danger of wreſting the Scriptures be a good reaſon why the common People ſhould not read them, then no body at all ſhould look into them; for their moſt learned Prieſts have wreſted them more than the common People. And that againſt their Oath, whereby they are bound to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers, who all agree that what was ſaid to Peter in theſe three places belonged to all the Apoſtles; whoſe Writings, as the reſt of the Scriptures, have by none been more foully abuſed than by the Popes of Rome, whoſe Interpretations and Applications of them, ſhould they be collected in a Book, would make one of the moſt ſhameful pieces that hath been yet extant in the World.

Thirdly; And let the Reader obſerve once more how ill they of that Church are agreed about the Interpretation of theſe three places of Scripture, which are the Subject of this Diſcourſe.

There are four Interpretations of the firſt place, Thou art Peter, &c. (as hath been elſe-where obſerved) which have had great Authors in the Roman Church, as well as others. Some by Rock underſtand Peter's FAITH in the Confeſſion he had newly made (which by the way, Joh. Ekius L. 1. contra Luther de Petri Primatu, c. 13. ſays in the Age before us, no body denied to be the ſenſe, and bids Luther name the Man that ſaid otherways) Others CHRIST himſelf, whom Peter had confeſſed to be the Son of God; others PETER, and others ALL the APOSTLES; which laſt is the Expoſition of Paſchaſius Radbertus, the famous Broacher of Tranſubſtantiation, whoſe words are theſe:L. iv. in Matthaeum. The Church of God is built not only upon Peter, but upon all the Apoſtles. Now they who follow the firſt and ſecond ſenſe, can find no Prerogative here for St. Peter above the reſt of the Apoſtles; and they that adhere only to the third (in oppoſition to the other, as they now commonly do) are confuted by thoſe who aſſert the fourth, that theſe words were ſpoken to all the Apoſtles.

And indeed they are all forced to confeſs that nothing is here promiſed, which is not contained in the next words, And I will give thee the Keys, &c. But what this is, none of them can certainly tell. For one ſort (ſuch as Cajetan) hold the Keys contain more than binding and looſing; which Bellarmine ſays is falſe; nay a thing never heard of in the Church. And conſequently this Power of binding and looſing being promiſed to them all (Matth. xviii. 18.) the Power of the Keys was promiſed to them all; and Chriſt promiſing nothing but what he performed, he gave therefore the higheſt Power to them all, which is contained in the Keys.

Here they are at a great loſs, and cannot agree how to bring themſelves off from this difficulty, which ſtrips Peter of his Supremacy. Therefore ſome have deviſed the above-named Conceit, that Peter alone had the Keys given him as their Ordinary, and they as his Legats. But this ſeems too groſs unto others, who acknowledg they all had the Keys immediately from God, as much as Peter, if they be conſidered as Apoſtles, but not if they be conſidered as Biſhops and Paſtors; for theſe two Offices they fancy they had, the Apoſtolical and the Paſtoral Dignity; the firſt immediately from Chriſt, the other by and under Peter. But this is in a manner, the ſame thing in a little finer dreſs, which was ſaid before. Therefore others unſatisfied with this, that the Apoſtles ſhould receive their Juriſdiction from Peter, have ordered the matter on this faſhion, that Peter might uſe the Keys alone, but they not without him.

But Sixtus Senenſis cannot digeſt this; and therefore hath deviſed a threefold Power in Peter, of Apoſtleſhip, of Order, and of the Kingdom Biblioth. Sanct. l. v. Annot. clxix.. With reſpect to the firſt he grants Paul was equal to Peter, becauſe he had the Office of Preaching the Goſpel not from Peter but from God, as much as Peter himſelf had. With reſpect to the ſecond alſo he acknowledges the truth of what St. Jerome writes againſt Jovinian, that all the Apoſtles equally received the Keys (let the Catholick Scripturiſt mind that) and firmly laid the Foundation of the Church: and of what he ſays to Evagrius; All Biſhops are equal, becauſe all the Apoſtles were ſo. But then with reſpect to the laſt, viz. the Power of the Kingdom, and Authority over all Biſhops and Churches, Peter was Head of all. That is, Peter muſt ſome way or other be above all the reſt, but how they do not know.

For Cardinal Baronius Ad An. 34. n. ccv. will have it that all the Apoſtles had the uſe of the Keys equally with Peter, by the ORDINARY Power of remitting Sins; and by this diſtinction expounds the fore-named words of St. Jerome. But his Brother, Cardinal Bellarmine, (being aware that if Peter had the Keys more than the reſt, by an EXTRAORDINARY Power, his Authority would not deſcend upon his Succeſſors) ſays quite contrary, that the Apoſtles had the Power of the Keys after an EXTRAORDINARY manner, and Peter only by an ORDINARYL. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. xii.. Thus what one builds up, his Fellow pulls down. There is a Confuſion of Tongues in this Babel, which they labour to erect. They cannot agree ſo much as about the Terms, wherein they deliver this new Doctrine. For it is a pure Invention, without any Reaſon, or any Authority for it: but it muſt be ſo, though they know not how, becauſe it is their pleaſure.

As all the reſt is, which they draw from the laſt place, Feed my Sheep. In which they ſay Chriſt gave the Power which he had promiſed: and therefore ſince he promiſed it to all, he gave it to all, if any thing was given here. And yet, againſt ſuch clear demonſtration, they will have this to be a peculiar Grant to Peter: no body knows how or why, but becauſe it ſeems good to them. For this is ſo little approved by others, that they fairly grant the ancient Opinion was (and make it theirs) that theſe Words were not ſpoken to Peter in a Perſonal, but in a Publick Capacity; as he repreſented all the Apoſtles. Inſomuch that they can find nothing peculiar to him, in the word FEED, becauſe of that of St. Auſtin'sDe Agone Chriſt. c. 30.; When Chriſt ſaid to Peter, he ſaid to all, Feed my Sheep: nor in the word SHEEP, becauſe St. Ambroſe ſaith (in the Place before named) Thoſe Sheep not only Peter received; but he received them with us, and we received them with him. Which things are ſo evident, that it hath brought ſome in that Communion to this Concluſion, that out of none of theſe three Places, nor all of them together, can be gathered ſo much as the bare Primacy of St. Peter Du Pin de antiqua Eccleſ. Diſcipl. diſſert. iv. P. 311., after that manner which Bellarmine collects it: but it muſt be gathered thus; that in thoſe places Peter bears the Perſon of the Church, ſpeaks for the reſt of the Apoſtles, and is himſelf ſpoken unto by Chriſt in their Name, as the first and principal.

Behold then the UNITY of which they boaſt in that Church; and how little CERTAINTY there is among them, even of the main point of their Faith, and as Bellarmine Praefatio in L. de Poutifie. Rom. makes bold to call it, the Sum of Chriſtian Religion.

It ſtands upon ſuch a tottering Foundation, that, finding how little theſe Texts in the New Teſtament avail them, they ranſack'd the Old, to fetch ſome feeble ſupport unto it from thence. And the late Catholick Scripturiſt fancies the Old Teſtament helps them thus far in this Point, that it teaches Seventh Point. n. 1, 3., That among the Prieſts of the Old Law, one was choſen ſucceſſively to be the higheſt and chief Prieſt. Commanding all ſuch Cauſes, as are Eccleſiaſtical Cauſes, to be brought to the Tribunal of the High Prieſt, and his Sentence to be obeyed even under pain of Death. And for this he alledges Deut. xvii. 8.

But this only proves how ignorant ſuch Catholicks as he are in the Holy Scriptures. Where it is impoſſible for him to find that the High Prieſts were choſen ſucceſſively; for they had that Dignity by Inheritance, in one certain Family, and not by Election. And as for the Power which he aſcribes to them (though he promiſes us, in his Preface, to produce loud ſpeaking Texts, for all the Points we miſlike in their Religion) there is not ſo much as a whiſper of it, in the place he alledges. The words of which he did wiſely not to quote, but only the Chapter and Verſe: Which we, that have liberty to read the Bible, can eaſily diſcern, ſpeak loudly againſt him; and confute that Doctrine which he would confirm by them. If there ariſe, ſays Moſes in that Text, a Matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between Blood and Blood, between Plea and Plea, and between Stroke and Stroke, being matters of Controverſy within thy Gates: then ſhalt thou ariſe, and get thee up into the place, which the Lord thy God ſhall chooſe. And thou ſhalt come unto the Prieſts the Levites, and unto the Judg that ſhall be in thoſe days and enquire, and they ſhall ſhew thee the ſentence of Judgment. And thou ſhalt do according to the Sentence, which they of that place (which the Lord ſhall chooſe) ſhall ſhew thee, &c.

I need not recite the reſt at large, to the end of the 12th Verſe: For every underſtanding Reader muſt evidently ſee, without going further, that he ſpeaks not a Syllable of the Power of the High-Prieſt, but of the Authority of the Supreme Tribunal, or Court among the Jews (which conſiſted of a great number of Perſons) wherein all Controverſies, which could not be ended in inferiour Courts, were to be finally determined, without any Appeal.

In which Supreme Court the High Prieſt was ſo far from being the Chief, that he was not ſo much as admitted to be a Member of it, unleſs he was a wiſe Man.

And then, he did not bear an abſolute Sway there, but the Sentence was paſſed by the whole Council; as appears (not meerly from the Jewiſh Writers, but) from theſe repeated Admonitions in the very Body of this Law. THEY ſhall ſhew thee the Sentence of Judgment, ver. 9. and thou ſhalt do according to that thing, which THEY of that Place ſhew thee: and obſerve to do according to all that THEY inform thee (ver. 10.) according to the Sentence of the Law which THEY ſhall teach thee; according to the Judgment which THEY ſhall tell thee: thou ſhalt not decline from the Sentence which THEY ſhall ſhew thee (ver. 11.) Where he muſt be blind who doth not ſee ſix flat Contradictions to the Aſſertion of this Catholick Scripturiſt, in this very place which he produces, to prove that Moſes here ſets up the Tribunal of the High Prieſt, and orders his Sentence to be obeyed upon pain of Death, in Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical.

This was neither his Court, nor were Cauſes judged by his Sentence, nor is there one word here of Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical: but only of Civil; between Blood and Blood, Plea and Plea, Stroke and Stroke: unleſs we ſuppoſe the Word we tranſlate Stroke, relates to the Plague of the Leproſy, which belonged to the Prieſts to judg of it: but excluded Men from all Civil as well as Sacred Society.

And if the utmoſt be granted that can be ſuppoſed [that there is mention here of ſomething appertaining to Spiritual Cauſes] yet it muſt be alſo allowed by all Men of ſenſe, that this Text ſpeaks moſt of Civil Cauſes: and therefore can no more prove an abſolute Obedience to be due to Spiritual than to Civil Governours.

All which conſidered, I do not ſee but Dr. Reynolds had reaſon to ſay, they might as well call in the help of the firſt words of Geneſis [In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth] as this Verſe in Deuteronomy, to ſupport the Popes Supremacy. For there, as Pope Boniface VIII. very gravely obſerves (in the fore-mentioned Extravagant) Moſes ſays, God created the Heavens and the Earth, in the beginning, not in the beginnings; and therefore he who reſiſts the Popes Authority, reſiſts the Ordinance of God; unleſs (with Manichaeus) he feign two beginnings (or Principles) which is falſe and heretical.

And by ſuch fine fetches as this Innocent IIIDecret Greg. L. iv. Tit. 17. c. 13. per venerabilem. proved his Power over the whole Church from theſe words in Deuteronomy: But he did not mince the matter (as this Catholick Scripturiſt doth) but ſtoutly affirmed that the Pope may exerciſe Temporal Juriſdiction, as well as Spiritual, not only in the Churches Patrimony, but in other Countries alſo, in certain Cauſes. For Deuteronomy being by Interpretation a Second Law, it proves by the very force of the word, that what is here decreed (in Deut. xvii. 8.) ought to be obſerved in the New Teſtament. And then the place which the Lord hath choſen, is the Apoſtolick See, viz. Rome; the Levitical Prieſts, are his Brethren the Cardinals; the High-Prieſt or Judg, is the Pope, the Vicar of him who is a Prieſt for ever after the Order of Melchiſedec, appointed by God the Judg of Quick and Dead: the firſt ſort of Judgments between Blood and Blood, is meant of Criminal and Civil Cauſes; the laſt, between Stroke and Stroke, is meant of Eccleſiaſtical and Criminal; the middle, between Plea and Plea, belongeth to both Eccleſiaſtical and Civil; in which if any one contemn the Sentence of the Apoſtolick See, he is doomed to die; that is, to be ſeparated by the Sentence of Excommunication as a dead Man, from the Communion of the Faithful.

Nothing is more evident than that, according to this Catholick Expoſition of Pope Innocent, the Biſhop of Rome is, by the Divine Law, Head of all Chriſtians, as well in Civil Cauſes as in Eccleſiaſtical. This Text in Deuteronomy proves the one as much as the other: that is, it proves juſt nothing, but that the Myſtery of Iniquity wrought very high, when ſuch myſtical Senſes of Holy Scripture were ſwallowed glibly, to confirm the chiefeſt Myſtery of the Romiſh Faith.

Perhaps the Catholick Scripturiſt will ſay, that they now argue from this place only by a parity of Reaſon; that there muſt be but one High Prieſt among Chriſtians, becauſe their was no more among the Jews: To which they may have an Anſwer, when they prove that Judaea was as big as the whole Chriſtian World.

That's as hopeful a Task for him to labour in, as any he hath undertaken. And ſo I take my leave of him till he hath finiſhed it; for it will be too tedious to follow him to his next Text out of the New Teſtament, Matth. xxiii. 2. which he calls an unanſwerable Text concerning the High Prieſts of the old Law. Ʋpon the Chair of Moſes have ſitten the Scribes and Phariſees; all therefore whatſoever they ſhall ſay unto you, obſerve and do it. For no body but himſelf can ſee a Syllable here concerning the High Prieſts, who did not ſit in Moſes his Chair, but were the Succeſſors of Aaron. And beſides that, this place belongs to another Head of their Doctrine, about the Popes Infallibility; of which if this be a proof, it likewiſe proves the Infallibility of Annas and Caiphas, and juſtifies thoſe that crucified our Bleſſed Lord and Saviour.

THE END.

LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Richard Chiſwel at the Roſe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1688.

ERRATA. PAge 110. Marg. line 4. for Tract, read Orat. xxix. P. 111. l. 2. r. of his Falls. Ib. Marg. penult. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . P. 134. l. 20. r. ranſack.