A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer, Chapter 4

A Reply to the Catholic Gentlemans Answer · Chapter 4

p. 43CHAP. IV. An Anſwer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter.

Sect. I.

The Romaniſts pretenſions founded in S. Peters univerſal Paſterſhip. Of Poſſeſſion without debating of Right. What Power the Pope was poſſeſt of here.

Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap: his objections begin to grow to ſome height, they are reducible to three heads, the firſt is by way of Preface, a charge of a very conſiderable default in the whole diſcourſe that I remember not what matters I handle; the other two are refutations of the two evidences I uſe to diſprove the Popes claim of univerſal Trimacie from Chriſt's donation to S. Peter.

The firſt of the three is ſet down in theſe words:

Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Chriſt his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church, where not to reflect upon his curious diviſion, I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles, when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an univerſal Primacie; for it being granted that in England, the Pope was in quiet poſſeſſion of ſuch a Primacie, the proof that it was juſt belongeth not to us, more than to any King, who received his Kingdome from his Anceſtors, time out of minde, to prove his pretenſion to the Crown juſt: for quiet poſſeſſion of it ſelf is a proof, untill the contrary be convinced, as who ſhould rebell againſt ſuch a King were a Rebell, untill he ſhewed ſufficient cauſe for quitting obedience; with this difference, that obedience to a King may be preſcription or bargain be made unneceſſary, but if Chriſt hath commanded obedience to his Church, no length of years, nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience, ſo that the charge of proving the Pope to have p. 44no ſuch authority from Chriſt, lieth upon the Proteſtants now as freſhly, as the firſt day of the breach, and will doe ſo untill the very laſt.

Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap: 4. is viſibly this; The Church of England being by the Romaniſt charged of ſchiſm in departing from the obedience of the Biſhop of Rome, and this upon pretenſe that he, as ſucceſſor of S. Peter hath a ſupremacy over all the Churches in the world, I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this ſuggeſtion, one whether Saint Peter had this univerſal Supremacy given him by Chriſt; the ſecond, whether this power, if ſuppoſed to be inſtated on Saint Peter, devolved on the Biſhops of Rome. The former of theſe I examined in that Chapter. And I muſt now diſcern, if I can, how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking.

Num. 4 Firſt, ſaith he, will not reflect on my curious diviſion. And I that know there was no curioſity in any diviſion of mine, but on the other ſide, ſuch perſpicuity as was agreeable to a deſire and indevour to ſet down the whole matter of debate between us as diſtinctly and intelligibly as I could, that the Reader might be ſure to judge whether I anſwered their charge, or no, I have no reaſon in the leaſt to ſuſpect the fitneſſe and uſefulneſſe of my diviſion, nor conſequently to be impertinently ſollicitous in reflecting on it.

Num. 5 That which he ſaith he cannot omit, I ſhall make haſte to conſider with him, viz: my great miſtake, in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an univerſal Primacie.

Num. 6 To this I anſwer, 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretenſe for this exception here. For I no where ſay the leaſt word toward this purpoſe of requiring the Romaniſt to prove his pretenſions, or to prove them by this medium, OnelyOnly I take it for granted, that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's univerſal Primacie, and that Chriſt's donation to S. Peter is one of thoſe arguments. And that I was not herein miſtaken, I ſhall, inſtead of a larger deduction of evidences from all ſorts of Romiſh writers, make my appeal to the objecter himſelf, in ſeveral places of this little p. 45tract, particularly p. 20. where he hath theſe words, we relie on the firſt, as the foundation, and corner-ſtone of the whole building, And what that firſt is, appears by the words immediately precedent, that the pretenſions for the Pope's ſupremacy in England muſt be founded as ſucceſſor to S. Peter in the univerſal Paſtorſhip of the Church, ſo including England as a member thereof. From whence in ſtead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory, I ſhall onelyonly make this undeniable inference, that I was not miſtaken in thinking that the Romaniſt doth actually found his pretenſions in the univerſal Paſtorſhip of Saint Peter, and conſequently, If I prove that to fail, I have removed that which in his own ſtyle is the foundation and corner ſtone of his whole building.

Num. 7 But then 2. becauſe he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romaniſt to prove his pretenſion juſt, but that it ſufficeth that he hath the poſſeſſion, I deſire to propoſe theſe three things to his conſideration, 1. By demanding whether at this time, or for theſe 100 years the Pope hath had the poſſeſſion of the obedience of this nation; I ſuppoſe he will ſay he hath not; And if ſo, then by the force of his own argument, that poſſeſſion, and all the arguments deducible from thence, are now loſt to him, the preſcription being now on our ſide, as before on theirs, and there is nothing left him to plead, but the original right on his ſide, againſt the violence of the ſucceeding poſſeſſion: And if he come to the pleading of the right, then that is the very method that I propoſed, and ſo did not offend or forget my ſelf in ſo doing.

Num. 8 Secondly, Concerning their poſſeſſion before Henry VIII. his daies, I ſhall demand how long they had it, and how they acquired it; If he will not at all think fit to anſwer this queſtion in either part, then I confeſſe he hath made an end of the diſpute, and by refuſing to give account of the right he had to his poſſeſſion, he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can, and then to imitate him, and give no account to any how he came by it, which as it is an unchriſtian method, every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifeſt charges of injuſtice and violence, ſo again 'tis an evil leſſon p. 46againſt himſelf, and unleſſe we will confeſſe our ſelves Schiſmaticks in caſting off their obedience, 'tis impoſſible for him ever to prove us ſuch, this kinde of ſchiſm, which now we ſpeak of, being by all acknowledged to be a ſeparation from our lawfull ſuperiors, and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be ſuch to this nation, without offering ſome proof to the point of right, as well as adhering to his poſſeſſion.

Num. 9 To which purpoſe it is farther obſervable, 1. That even in ſecular things it is not every poſſeſſion that gives a right, but 1. either the bonae fidci poſſeſſio, a poſſeſſion honeſtly come by, or the unjuſtneſſe of whoſe original is not conteſted or made to appear. And 2. whatſoever privilege by humane laws belongs to preſcription, yet in divine or Eccleſiaſticall matters preſcription can be of no force againſt truth of right, and ſo this Gentleman ſeems to acknowledge here, extending the force of poſſeſſion no farther than till ſufficient cauſe be ſhewed to the contrary. 3. That though whilſt I am in poſſeſſion I need not be bound to prove my right, yet when I am out of poſſeſſion, there is not, beſide abſolute force, any way poſſible to recover a poſſeſſion, but this of conteſting and evidencing the right of it, and that, 'tis evident, is the preſent caſe.

Num. 10 But if he ſhall think fit to anſwer the queſtion in either part of it, then by the anſwer to the firſt part of it, he muſt be forced to ſet down the original of it; and by anſwer to the ſecond, the right of that original (and ſo he hath been fain to doe, as elſewhere, ſo in this very paragraph, where he ſpeaks of Chriſt's commanding obedience to his Church, I ſuppoſe he muſt mean the Church of Rome) and that is again the very method in which I propoſed to debate, and conſider this matter.

Num. 11 Thirdly, For the power, of which the Pope was poſſeſt in this Kingdome, either it was no more than an Eccleſiaſtical Primacie, ſuch as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Biſhops, or elſe it was a ſupreme power over the King himſelf, whether in Spiritual, or alſo in Temporal affairs.

Num. 12 If it pretend onelyonly to be the former of theſe, then the power of Kings to erect or tranſlate Primacies or Patriarchates, p. 47which is inſiſted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schiſme, c 6. §. 9. was ſufficient then to juſtifie what here was done, no poſſeſſion being pleadable againſt the King, to reſtrain or exclude this exerciſe of his power, and ſo now to free us from ſchiſme, (by this Gentleman's rule) this act of the Kings in tranſlating the Primacie being ſufficient cauſe for quitting our obedience, ſuppoſing the Biſhop of Rome formerly to have been our Primate.

Num. 13 But if the pretenſions be higher, even for the Supremacie it ſelf, either in whole, or in part, then 1. I may ſurely ſay they were never bonae fidei poſſeſſores of that, And 2. that the King, who by being ſo, is ſupreme in his own Kingdome, and cannot admit of another ſupreme either in or out of it, hath all the advantages of poſſeſſion, which are here ſpoken of by this Gentleman, and muſt not be diveſted of his right, nay muſt not, cannot (remaining a King) diveſt himſelf of it, nor might any without the guilt of rebellion quit his obedience to him.

Num. 14 Laſtly, to remove all appearance of reaſon from this whole exception, 1. It is manifeſt that at the time of caſting out the power of the Pope out of this Kingdome, there were (I muſt have leave to ſuppoſe, convincing) reaſons given for the doing of it, A breviate of which the Reader may finde in that one Treatiſe (mentioned in the Tract of Schiſm, p. 135.) De verâ differentiâ Regiae & Eccleſiaſticae poteſtatis, then compoſed and publiſhed by the Biſhops, and ſince reprinted by Melchior Goldaſtus in Monarchia, tom: 3. p. 22. under the title of opus eximium, a very notable excellent work. 2. That how meanly ſo ever it hath been performed, yet this was one ſpecial deſign of the Tract of Schiſm (which this Gentleman ſaith will alwaies lie upon Proteſtants) to prove the Pope to have no ſuch authority from Chriſt, as the Romaniſt pretendeth him to have. And this I hope may ſuffice to be ſaid to his foreign, his preluſory skirmiſh againſt this fourth Chapter.

p. 48Sect. II.

The condition of S. Peter's Province. The Apoſtles diſtribution of their great Province, the World, into ſeveral portions. foreign, Act. 1. the interpretation thereof vindicated.

Num. 1 I Proceed now to his refutations of the firſt evidence I make uſe of to disprove the Pope's claim to univerſal Primacie from Chriſt's donation to S. Peter.

Num. 2 My evidence is taken from the condition of S. Peter's Province, as by agreement betwixt him and his fellow Apoſtle S. Paul, it was aſſigned him, Gal. 2. 7, 9. that he ſhould be the Apoſtle of the circumciſion or Jewes (which certainly was not the whole world) excluſively to the Gentile part, or the uncircumciſion, which was remitted to S. Paul both there and Rom. 11. 13. and this, as is**Of Schiſm, p. 74. there ſpecified, in every city where they met together. And becauſe the univerſal extenſive commiſſion of Chriſt to all and every Apoſtle, giving them authority to go and preach to the whole world, might ſeem to be contrary to this ſpecial aſſignation, I took care to prevent this objection, by premiſing that this commiſſion given by Chriſt indefinitely, and unlimitedly, and extending equally to the whole world, was reſtrained by ſome ſubſequent act or acts of the Apoſtles themſelves, who diſtributed their univerſal Province into ſeveral portions and aſſignations, called foreign, portions of Apoſtolacy, and the ſeveral Provinces where they were thus to labour, ſtyled each of them foreign, to each an aſſigned peculiar place, Act. 1. 25.

Num. 3 Now to this groundwork of my inſuing probation, he makes his firſt exception in theſe words:

As for his Proofs, which he calls Evidences, he telleth us firſt that S. Peter was the Apoſtle of the circumciſion excluſively to the uncircumciſion or Gentiles; Sect. 5.To prove this, he ſaith the Apoſtles diſtributed their univerſal Province into ſeveral foreign, that is, by his interpretation, leſſer Provinces, and citeth Act. 1. v. 25. where S. Peter with the other Apoſtles prayeth God to ſhew which of the two propoſed he was pleaſed to have promoted p. 49to the dignity of being an Apoſtle, this they call foreign, and this rigorous interpreter ſaith, it ſignifies the ſpecial Province S. Matthias was to have, though the Scripture it ſelf expreſſeth the contrary, ſaying the effect was that afterward he was counted amongst the Apoſtles: Could any man not blinded with error make ſo wretched an interpretation? but he goes on preſently adding that S. Peter in the ſame place calleth theſe particular Provinces foreign, and will you know what this foreign or proper place is, read the Text, and you ſhall finde that S. Peter ſpeaketh of Judass, 'going to Hell to receive his eternall damnation: Methinks you ſhould wonder I can go on without aſtoniſhment at ſuch blasphemous explications, for ſure it can be no leſſe ſo to abuſe the Word of God, and after this what doe you expect?

Num. 4 Here are two great charges, the firſt introduced by ſtyling me a rigorous interpreter, and proſecuted, by affirming me blinded with error, my interpretation wretched and contrary to what the Scripture expreſſeth. But the ſecond is of no leſſe than blasphemy, and abuſing the Word of God, and his friend is to wonder that he is not aſtoniſhed, and after I have been guilty of ſuch crimes as theſe, 'tis in vain forſooth to expect any thing from me, the whole inſuing diſcourſe is utterly defamed and blaſted, like**A. Gellius, l. 18. c. 3. Philopemen's good counſel in the Senate of Lacedaemon, by being delivered by ſo ill a man, ſo infamous a perſon, as a blaſphemer is juſtly deemed by him.

Num. 5 But I am not to be diſquieted with this, or to prepare any reply to the Rhetorical paſſionate part of it, if the interpretations ſhall be found agreeable to Scripture, the aſtoniſhment and the outcrie will be ſoon at an end, And therefore that is the onelyonly care that I ſhall here aſſume on me.

Num. 6 And 1. I ſhall ſuppoſe it evident from the ſtory, and from the very end to which this commiſſionating ſo great a number of twelve Apoſtles was deſigned, that all the Apoſtles were not to go together, in conſort, to preach unto all the world, It would have been long ere the Faith would have been propagated to all the world, if this ſlower method had been taken.

Num. 7 To this it is conſequent, that our Saviour having left the world in common before them, the diſtribution of that one p. 50wider into ſeverall leſſer Provinces muſt be an act of the Apoſtles themſelves, as when God had given the land of Canaan to the 12 tribes of Iſrael, Eleazar, and Joſua, and the heads of the Fathers of the tribes diſtribute to every tribe their foreign or portion (which becauſe it was to continue to their poſterity, we ordinarily ſtyle their inheritance) Joſ. 14. 1.

Num. 8 And as there is no doubt of the truth of this fact, ſo if this one thing be granted me, there is no more incumbent on me to prove in this matter; and though neither of thoſe phraſes, Act. 1. 25. ſhould be for my turn, yet my concluſion remains good to me, as farre as it pretendeth to be deducible from thoſe phraſes, viz: that the Apoſtles diſtributed their great Province, the whole world, into ſeverall leſſer Provinces, one, or poſſibly more than one to go one way, the other another.

Num. 9 It was therefore ex abundanti, more than was neceſſary, that I annexed the uſe of thoſe phraſes to that purpoſe, not undertaking to prove this (as this Gentleman ſaith) by thoſe texts, much leſſe Peter's being Apoſtle of the circumciſion (which was a conſectary and had its ſeveral probation afterwards) but onelyonly accommodating thoſe phraſes to the matter in hand, and by the way aſſigning what I thought the moſt probable notion of them.

Num. 10 And although it be ſtill as unneceſſary to impoſe my explications on this Gentleman, the concluſion having as yet no uſe of them, yet being obliged to give him ſuch an account of my actions, as may free me from blaſphemy, and abuſe of the Word of God, I ſhall here adventure to make my apologie, by premiſing 1. not out of Grammarians onelyonly, but out of the Scripture it ſelf, the notion of the word foreign, which ſignifying originally a lot or way of diviſion (into ſeverals) of that, which belongs to all in common (one means of ſetling propriety among men) it comes next by an eaſie figure to ſignifie that which is thus divided, or which in the diviſion falls to every man as his portion.

Num. 11 So ſaith Phavorinus foreign, and foreign, the verb ſignifies diſtribution both active and paſſive: and accordingly in the ſon of Syrach we have foreign p. 51diviſion of, or, by lot, Ecclus. 14 15. and by that we may underſtand a leſſe obvious expreſſion, c. 37. 8. beware of a counſeller, &c. foreign, leſt he caſt the lot upon thee, i. e. leſt he help another to cheat thee, and then go ſharer with him, divide thee betwixt them.

Num. 12 So in like manner ſaith Phavorinus of the ſubſtantive foreign, and foreign, it ſignifies a part, that which falls to one's lot, a portion, As Act. 8. 21. foreign and foreign portion and lot are all one. And he that hath a poſſeſſion thus ſetled on him, and dominion by that means, or he that undertakes to dreſſe or till ſo much land, foreign and foreign, the Lord and the husbandman, are both the interpretation of foreign, he that hath ſuch a lot or portion aſſigned him.

Num. 13 Proportionably thoſe that any Governour of the Church is ſet over, are called his foreign or lot, and 1 Pet. 5. 3. ſuch Governours are commanded foreign, not to behave themſelves as the Roman Pretors were wont to doe over their ſeveral Provinces, oppreſſing and tyrannizing over them.

Num. 14 To this it is agreeable, that foreign, Act. 1. 17. ſhould denote ſuch a portion of miniſterial office, as belonged to one that was ſent or commiſſionated by Chriſt foreign to a task or work, expreſt v. 20. by foreign his Epiſcopal office (for that though it be a rule, yet is alſo foreign a miniſterie, Mat. 23. 11.) in the Church.

Num. 15 Hence again that portion of employment in preaching the Faith, teſtifying the reſurrection of Chriſt, which belonged to one ſingle Apoſtle, ſuch as Judas was, and foreign from which he departed by his ſin, and to which another ſucceed… by way of ſurrogation, is as fitly ſtyled foreign a portion of Apoſtolacy, a foreign or diviſion of that grand employment.

Num. 16 And what either one ſingle error or act of blindneſſe was committed in thus interpreting, much more occoecation or being blinded with error, which I ſuppoſe the compound accumulation (whether onelyonly ſin or puniſhment alſo) of many errors, what rigor or wretchedneſſe of interpretation, I am ſtill ſo blinde as not to diſcern, and this Gentleman is not ſo charitable, p. 52as to give me his leaſt directions to recover to my way, or my eyes again.

Num. 17 For as to the Scriptures expreſſing the contrary, in ſaying he was counted among the Apoſtles, that ſure is no evidence againſt my interpretation, for Matthias may become one of the twelve, ſucceed to Judas's office and lot, that which did, or ſhould, if he had lived, have belonged to him, and yet neither he, if he had lived, nor now Matthias in his ſtead, have more than a particular Province, this or that region, (not the whole world in common) aſſigned for his appartment.

Num. 18 So that as yet I cannot diſcern that I have done the leaſt injury to the text in thinking foreign the lot or diviſion of Apoſtolacy, to be the ſeveral task that belonged to any of the twelve Apoſtles, or that portion of labour, that by conſent at their parting one from another ſhould be aſſigned to each of them.

Num. 19 And then the analogie will ſtill hold perfectly, that as this diſtribution of tasks conſiſted in going to ſeverall quarters for the preaching of the faith of Chriſt, one, one way; another, another; ſo he that had received his foreign portion of Apoſtolacy, ſhould be ſaid to have foreign a peculiar or proper place, and having ſo, ſhould (not immediately, but ſoon after the Holy Ghoſt's deſcent) foreign, go, or, betake himſelf to it.

Num. 20 This therefore, and upon theſe grounds of fitneſſe, both in reſpect of the words, and the context, I take to be the meaning of that phraſe foreign, to go to his proper place, his peculiar aſſignation, And I cannot imagine the leaſt inconvenience that can lie againſt this rendring.

Num. 21 For 1. in caſe it ſhould not be the true, yet it can be any thing as ſoon as blasphemy, thus to interpret it. 'Tis certainly nothing to the diſhonour of God, to ſay that Matthias went and preacht the Gospel in ſuch a region peculiarly, and ſo there is no blaſphemie in that, viz: the matter of the interpretation; and for the abuſing of the Word of God, it is hard to divine how that can be deemed ſuch, which affixeth nothing to the Word of God, but that which is notoriouſly true (for ſo it is that Matthias went one way to preach the Gospel, and p. 53S. John and S. Bartholomew each of them another) and would be acknowledged to doe ſo, if this text were not applied to it.

Num. 22 As for the other interpretation of the words (which this Gentleman is pleaſed to preferre, and might have injoyed his own judgment, without cenſuring them as blaſphemers, that differed from him in expounding one difficult phraſe) by affixing it to Judas, and not to Matthias, 1. there is no indication in the context that favours that, it was ſufficient to ſay of Judas that which had been ſaid v. 16, 17, 18, 19. to ſet out the horror of his fact, which ſoon attended it in his own breaſt, and the bloody death which it brought upon him, but he needed not proceed to revealing of ſecrets, the ſadder conſequents, which remained in arrear after death, and 'tis Chryſoſtome's obſervation on v. 16. behold, ſaith he, foreign, the wiſe Chriſtian carriage of S. Peter, foreign, how he doth not reproach, and inſult on him, calling him foreign, villain, or deteſtable villain, foreign, but ſets down the fact ſimply, and on v. 16. foreign, he ſets down, ſaith he, his preſent vengeance, that ſure is it which befell him in this world, which, by the way, cannot well conſiſt with the interpreting it of hell.

Num. 23 2. The uſe of Parentheſes in ſcripture is very ordinary, and if that be here admitted (which it well may, without any more formal expreſſion of it, than by putting a comma after foreign, as it is already in the printed copies) then the interpretation is clear and unavoidable, to receive the lot or portion of his Miniſterie and Apoſtleſhip (from which Judas by tranſgreſſion fell) to go, or, that he may go to his proper place.

Num. 24 3. Hell being the foreign the common place or lot of all wicked men, it cannot fitly be expreſt with ſuch a double emphaſis, foreign, the place, the proper place, i. e. the place peculiar to him, which yet may very fitly be affirmed of Matthias his Province, ſo his, as it was not any mans elſe.

Num. 25 Laſtly, It is not near ſo proper to ſay that he ſinned foreign to go to hell, as that the other was choſen and ſurrogated into Judas's place foreign to go to preach to ſuch a quarter p. 54of the world, or that the Apostles deſired God to ſignifie his pleaſure whom he had choſen, that ſo he might take his portion of labour and go; His going was viſibly the end intended in all this, but damnation or puniſhment, going to hell, was never intended by Judas in his tranſgreſſion, though it be ſuppoſed the deſerved reward and conſequent of it.

Num. 26 All this amaſſed together, may, I hope, vindicate an innocent, and, I hope, obvious (farre from wreſted) interpretation from ſuch an accumulation of charge, as is laid upon it, without any tender of reaſon againſt it, but the foreign, O wretched (blasphemous &c.) in Lucian. And ſo much in anſwer to that Paragraph.

Sect. III.

S. Peter the Apoſtle of the Circumciſion; The agreement betwixt the Apoſtles. Peter's preaching to Cornelius.

Num. 1 HIs ſecond exception is to the poſition it ſelf of Peter's being the Apoſtle of the Jewes excluſively to the Gentiles, and it is in theſe words:

Num. 2 His poſition is a directly againſt Scripture, as if he had done it on purpoſe, the Scripture telling us how by a ſpecial viſion S. Peter was commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile first of all the Apoſtles, and himſelf in the Councel of Jeruſalem proteſting the ſame; and yet this Doctor can teach he was made Apoſtle to the Jewes, excluſively to the Gentiles, though all ſtory ſay the contrary.

Num. 3 The poſition, which is here ſaid to be ſo directly againſt the Scripture, was to my underſtanding the expreſſe affirmation of Scripture it ſelf, I am ſure from thence it was that I learnt it, and I muſt fail very much in my expectation, if this Gentleman himſelf doe not acknowledge the teſtimony produced, Gal. 2. 7. to be ſufficient ground to inferre it. There Peter is ſaid to be foreign, intruſted with the Goſpel of the circumciſion, That the circumciſion there ſignifies the Jews, and the foreign, which we render Goſpel, the office of preaching or revealing the faith to them, foreign p. 55the Apoſtolacy of the circumciſion, ver. 8. if it be not of it ſelf plain enough, 'tis made ſo by ver. 9. where it is added that Peter &c. were by agreement to go foreign to the circumciſion, where circumciſion, being the object or term of his motion, muſt needs be the Jewes, not circumciſion it ſelf, and ſo Saint Chryſoſtome at large expounds it, foreign, not to ſignifie the thing, circumciſion, but the perſons, the Jewes, in oppoſition to foreign the Gentiles, in the former words, and then going to them muſt needs be preaching to them, going to them as to a Province, the care of which was intruſted to him; and the right hands of fellowſhip, the agreement that was made betwixt them, James the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, and Peter, and the beloved diſciple on one ſide, and Paul and Barnabas on the other ſide, is ſide, is ſure the interpretation of the foreign the being intruſted or having that, as a Province, committed to them.

Num. 4 And this is the ſpecial importance, ſaith S. Chryſoſtome, of the foreign, but contrariwiſe (the beginning of ver. 7.) as that is oppoſed to the foreign their adding to him v. 6. James, ſaith he, and Peter and John, were ſo farre from oppoſing any thing that he had done, from adviſing any thing more, from telling him any circumſtance more than before he knew, that they not onelyonly approved, but commended what he had done, and to ſet the things the more unqueſtionably for the future, made this agreement with him and Barnabas, that whenſoever they ſhould come to the ſame city, mixt of Jewes and Gentiles, Peter and John ſhould betake themſelves to the Jewiſh, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentile part of it. For, as was ſaid, it was not by any particular aſſignation of Chriſt's, but by agreement among themſelves that this aſſignation of Provinces was made.

Num. 5 And therefore as in point of propriety, when that which is ſuppoſed to lie by nature in common to all, is, to avoid contentions and confuſions, and the ſtate of perpetual hoſtility, ſo diſtributed by agreement among the fellow-communers, as that one portion ſhall be aſſigned as the propriety and appartment of one, the other of another, then and from thenceforth that p. 56which is the proportion of one, is ſo his, that it belongs to no other, and again ſo his, that he hath no right to any other part (which I ſhould expreſſe by ſaying that that part is his excluſively to any other part, for ſure his ſtanding to any ſuch diviſion cuts him out, and ſo excludes him from any farther right) ſo here after this agreement between thoſe Apoſtles jointly made, concerning the two parts of mankinde, Jewes and Gentiles, to which they were to preach, and among whom to preſide, the Jewes are become S. Peter's peculiar, or portion, or Province, and that ſo his, as the Gentiles were not his, they being left to S. Paul (and Barnabas) who is both there affirmed to have them committed to him, and Rom. 11. 13. to be the Apoſtle of the Gentiles; And that I expreſt by that phraſe, Peter was the Apoſtle of the Jewes (ſo it is ſaid of him expreſly Gal. 2. 8.) excluſively to the uncircumciſion] and truly I knew not (nor yet doe) how to expreſſe it more ſignificatively, and more to the rendring of the full importance of thoſe plain texts, and this Gentleman hath not pleaſed to direct me how to doe it better.

Num. 6 And having the Scripture thus clear and irrefragable for my poſition, if now I ſhould not be able to ſalve the Antinomies, to anſwer his objections from ſcripture to it, this were certainly but my dulneſs (another that hath a greater foreign might be able to doe it) and therefore ought not to be any prejudice to the truth of the affirmation. But unleſſe the difficulties be greater than as yet appear, I ſhall not much doubt of undertaking the taske, of reconciling all the foreign that can be phanſied.

Num. 7 For what if Peter by ſpecial viſion was once commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile? Sure this is very competible with my poſition, For not to mention that this is acknowledged to have been a peculiar commiſſion by ſpecial viſion determined to that particular perſon and his family, which, till he had this viſion, he thought it utterly unlawfull to preach to, Act. 10. 28. (And it is certain that one ſpecial caſe were no prejudice to the general poſition) and again that Cornelius though a Gentile, was yet a Proſelyte of the Jews, ſuch as they called a Proſelyte of the gates, though not of juſtice, a foreign p. 57or devout man, though not circumciſed; To omit theſe, I ſay, the anſwer is obvious, 1. That this agreement, of which I ſpeak, was at the time of Paul's going up to Jeruſalem, Act. 15. i. e. ſome years after this of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, as may appear Gal. 2. 1. which defines it to be about 14 years after S. Paul's converſion, whereas that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, Act. 10. placed in the next chapter to that which deſcribed the converſion of Paul, muſt needs be ſome conſiderable ſpace before this time of his going up to the Councel at Jeruſalem. And ſo that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius, and his proteſting the ſame in the Councel of Ieruſalem, hath nothing of oppoſition to this agreement (made for the future, ſure, not for the time paſt) what ſhould be done in their afterpreaching, I ſuppoſe I need adde no more to that which is thus evident.

Num. 8 Secondly, I have already ſufficiently**Tract of Schiſm, c. 4. §. 7. expreſt, how farre this agreement extended, and how farre excluſive it was, not that it ſhould be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentile, or for Paul to preach to a Iew, but that when they met in the ſame city (as at Antioch certainly they did, and at Rome alſo I make no queſtion) then the one ſhould conſtantly apply himſelf to the Iewes, receive diſciples, form them into a Church, leave them to be governed by a Biſhop of his aſſignation, and the other ſhould doe in like manner to the Gentiles.

Num. 9 And that this was ſo in the conſequents of the ſtory, is largely ſhewed in that Tract. c. 4. §. 8.&c.What could have been ſaid more punctually to prevent this exception taken from Peter's preaching to Cornelius, I cannot yet diſcern. I wiſh this Gentleman had pleaſed to take notice of it; As it is, I hope he will now be more ſure to doe ſo.

p. 58Sect. IV.

Paul's firſt preaching to the Iewes in every city. To what the agreement between him and Peter belonged.

Num. 1 ANother argument he adds much to the ſame purpoſe, which will make his third Exception.

Num. 2 Again, if he were made the Apoſtle of the Iewes, excluſively to the Gentiles, by the ſame reaſon S. Paul was made Apoſtle of the Gentiles excluſively to the Iewes, for the words are like; and yet the ſcripture teacheth us that whereever he came, he preached firſt to the Iewes: Is not this to make ſcripture ridiculous?

Num. 3 Here is great ſeverity again, a charge of making ſcripture ridiculous, But I hope I have been farre from any guilt of it. That S. Paul, whenſoever he came to a city, where the faith had not been preached, and where there was any ſynagogue of the Iews, went into that ſynagogue in time of their publick aſſembling, I never made any queſtion, were this before, or were it after the ſtory of Act. 15.when I ſuppoſe this agreement to be made betwixt him and S. Peter, &c.

Num. 4 Great reaſon, and no ſmall obligation there was for that; For I. Chriſt had commanded that the preaching ſhould begin at Ieruſalem, the Metropolis of the Iewes, and as to the Iewes firſt (foreign) God had raiſed up his Son Ieſus, Act. 3. 26. ſo the Gospel of the reſurrection was to be revealed (foreign) to the Iew firſt, Rom. 1. 16.

Num. 5 And although in Paul's commiſſion from Chriſt it were peculiarly expreſſ that he ſhould preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 9. 15. & 22. 21. yet according to this great fundamental oeconomie he counted it neceſſary, firſt to make tender of his ſervice, and of the glad tidings of the Gospel, to the Iewes, and ſo he tells them Act. 13. 46. It was neceſſary that the word of God ſhould firſt have been ſpoken to you, and till the Iewes refuſe it and reject it, he doth not betake himſelf ſo peculiarly to the Gentiles.

Num. 6 Again, this was in ſome meaſure neceſſary to his publiſhing the Faith, For that was moſt advantageouſly to be done in the publick Aſſemblies, that it might be known to all that p. 59were in the city: And the ſynagogues of the Iewes being ſuch, were in all reaſon by him, that was a Iew, to be preferred before the Idolatrous Temples of the heathens: And according to theſe obligations, and inducements, ſo generally he did; But then as this no way prejudiceth his title of Apoſtle of the Gentiles, to which he was at the firſt aſſigned by Chriſt, ſo neither is it any way contrary to, or unreconcileable with the agreement which I ſuppoſe to be made between him and Peter and Iohn, which concerned onelyonly thoſe cities and regions, where they met, and came to plant Churches; There, and there onelyonly it is, that I affirm this diſtribution of Provinces to have been made, and conſequently the affirmation is no farther in any juſtice to be extended, than thus, that when they ſo met, Paul betook himſelf to the Gentile part, compacted the Gentile proſelytes or believers into a Church, put them into the hands of a Biſhop of his own aſſignation, Ignatius at Antioch, Timothy at Epheſus, whereas Euodius was in the former, Biſhop of the Iewiſh part, and in the latter, and in all Aſia, Iohn was the Apoſtle of the circumciſion, and conſtituted Biſhops there. And this I ſuppoſe, without farther inlarging, may ſatisfie the importunity of his ſecond Argument.

Sect. V.

Of the Gentiles being S. Paul's Province peculiarly.

Num. 1 HIs fourth exception is to my producing the words of ſcripture, Gal. 2. 7, 9. to the proof of my poſition, Thus,

Num. 2 But he goes on telling us, that the Gentiles excluſively to the circumciſion were the lot of S. Paul by S. Peter's own confeſſion, his words are, for the uncircumciſion or Gentiles they were not S. Peter's Province, but peculiarly S. Paul's &c. but look on the place and you ſhall finde no word of excluſion as [pec'iarly] is, and whereon lieth the whole queſtion, ſo that the Doctors evidence is his own word againſt the main torrent of ſcripture on the other ſide.

Num. 3 How truly it is ſuggeſted, that the torrent of the ſcripture is againſt me, hath already been made manifeſt in the foregoing p. 60ſections, where the contrary appearances, by this Gentleman produced, as they are farre enough from a main torrent, or from the common force of ſuch, (or but even of an ordinary ſtream) carrying the whole buſineſſe before them, ſo they are ſeverally examined, and allowed, as farre as they have any force in them, and found perfectly reconcileable with our pretenſions.

Num. 4 And ſo likewiſe it hath already been cleared in what ſenſe this Apoſtle of the Gentiles, ſo ſtyled by himſelf, and ſo, by agreement betwixt the Apoſtles, acknowledged by S. Peter, was ſo, peculiarly or excluſively to the Iewes.

Num. 5 As for his argument drawn onelyonly from hence, that in the text to the Galatians there is no word of excluſion, that ſure is of little force; If there were any agreement, and diviſion, and ſeveral aſſignation of Provinces, it muſt follow that what was ſaid to be one mans Province, is his, ſo as it is not the others, and ſo peculiarly, and ſo as farre as that agreement holds, excluſively his, As in the eſtate firſt held in common, and then after by agreement divided, it hath appeared ſo evidently, that I need adde no more to that matter.

Sect. VI.

Of S. Peter's withdrawing from the Gentile-communion. Of the Gentile diet. The prudence of S. Peter's action.

Num. 1 HIs fift Exception concerns an incidental paſſage about S. Peter, and is an actio injuriarum.

Num. 2 Again (ſaith he) ſee how he wrongs S. Peter and his Iewiſh Proſelytes, where he ſaies he withdrew from all communion with the Gentile Chriſtians. Sect. 8, 9.Whereas the text expreſſeth no more, than that he withdrew from eating with them, that is keeping the Gentile diet.

Num. 3 What wrong I have done S. Peter and his Gentile Proſelytes, I am yet to learn, nor am I ſure that I know wherein this Gentleman placeth the ſuppoſed injury, But I think it moſt probable to conſiſt in this, that I ſay he withdrew from all communion with the gentile Chriſtians, whereas he conceives p. 61that he withdrew onelyonly from keeping the gentile diet.

Num. 4 But 1. let me demand of this Gentleman, what he means by Gentile diet? I ſuppoſe uſing thoſe ſorts of meats, which were by the Jewiſh law forbidden; And if that be acknowledged of S. Peter, that he would not thus eat with the Gentiles, leſt he ſhould ſeem to offend againſt the Jewiſh law, then by the ſame reaſon he muſt certainly be ſuppoſed to abſtain from other communion with them, becauſe it was equally againſt the Iewiſh law, that a Iew ſhould converſe with a Gentile, as the woman of Samaria tells Christ, when he ſpake to her, but to draw him ſome water, Ioh. 4. 9. How, ſaid ſhe, dost thou being a Iew ask me to drink (and it was but water, none of the interdicted Gentile diet) being a woman of Samaria? and either ſhe or the Evangeliſt renders the reaſon, in as comprehenſive termes as mine were, foreign, for the Iewes have no dealings with the Samaritanes, and accordingly v. 27. the diſciples marvelled that he talked with the woman. And therefore certainly Peter did abſtain from all thoſe other waies of converſe and communion with the Gentiles, which the Iewes thought as unlawfull, as eating of the Gentile diet, or elſe he failed of the end of his action, which is evident what it was, a fear of ſcandalizing his countreymen, and from thence a ſhew of compliance with them, leſt he ſhould be thought by thoſe that came from Ieruſalem to forſake the Iudaical law.

Num. 5 That the very Preaching to a Gentile (which was the looſest degree of communion) was, according to the Iewiſh principles as unlawfull as eating any unclean meat, uſing the Gentile diet, is plain by Peter's proviſion, Act. 10. 12. where the one is repreſented by the other, and had he not received that viſion, which made it lawful to him to eat all kinde of meats, he acknowledgeth that he durſt not have adventured to come to one of another nation, v. 28. affirming in as plain words as could be, that it was an unlawful thing for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one of another nation, foreign, which certainly includes all communion, and not onelyonly that of the Genile diet. Thus unhappy is this Gentleman continually in his objections.

p. 62Num. 6 It were here obvious, and eaſie to ſhew the opinion of the Antients of the prudence and to kinde of uncharitableneſs of S. Peters action, which would farther evidence how farre I am from wronging S. Peter or his Proſelytes, in affirming what I affirm of them. But the preſent objection doth not make that neceſſary, I referre the Reader for it to the (foreign) interpretation, or Comments of**Savil: ed: t. 3. p. 730, 731. S. Chryſoſtome, who ſets it down exactly††foreign not as a quarrel, but as an foreign, an act of prudent managery, a wiſe ordering, deſigned by him and S. Paul, as moſt likely to reduce the Iewes from their errors, when he that did thus much to comply with them (not for fear of perſecution from them, but for fear of averting them from Chriſtianity) and was herein ſeemingly oppoſed by S. Paul (the foreign v. 11. being not to be rendred, he was to be blamed, in Paul's opinion, but he was blamed by the Gentile Chriſtians) made no manner of reply in defenſe of that compliance with the Iewes, and ſo yeilded that S. Paul was in the right, and not the Iudaizers. This interpretation of Chryſoſtome is followed by the Greek Commentators, and taken up by Ierome, but diſliked by Auguſtine in his Epiſtles to Ierome, and therefore I lay not weight upon it, nor have my pretenſions any need of it.

Sect. VII.

The two plantations of Gentile and Iewiſh Chriſtians at Antioch. Euodius and Ignatius. The differences of the Antients about them reconciled. The two Biſhops at Rome. Iewes in England. Simon Zelotes. Gentium Eccleſia the Church of Iewes as well as Gentiles.

Num. 1 HAving gained ſo little by the ſeveral ſteps of his exceptions, and the poſition remaining ſtill firm againſt all, I have leſſe reaſon to ſuſpect what is built upon this foundation in the inſuing ſections: Yet againſt them altogether he caſts one ſtone, before he will part, in thoſe words,

Num. 2 VponUpon this wiſely laid ground, he would perſwade us, followed the diviſion of the Biſhopricks both in Antioch and Rome, but p. 63bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cauſe, yet is he ſo certain of it, that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England, for fear S. Peter ſhould have touched a Gentile, and yet he cites S. Proſper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.

Num. 3 What force there is in any part of this ſuggeſtion, I ſhall not here need to ſet down at large. There be three branches of it, 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove (what I ſay) that this the cauſe of the diviſions of the Biſhopricks both in Antioch and Rome. 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England. 3. That I cite Proſper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.

Num. 4 For the firſt, I deſire the Reader to review what is already ſaid in the Tract of Schiſm c. 4. from §. 8. to §. 20. and I ſhall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde, that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to confirm what I ſay. The ſhort is, It is there manifeſted from Antiquity, that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, that there were two Churches there, one of Iewiſh, the other of Gentile Chriſtians, that in thoſe Churches at the ſame time ſate two diſtinct Biſhops, Euodius and Ignatius; by which means ſome appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained.

Num. 5 To what is there ſaid, I ſhall, inſtead of repeating, adde thus much more. Of Euodius, Suidas's words will be eaſily turned to, in foreign &c. In the reign of Claudius Caeſar, Peter the Apoſtle ordained Euodius Biſhop at Antioch. Of Ignatius the**l. 7. c. 47. Author of the Conſtitutions is expreſſe, foreign, Ignatius was ordained Biſhop there by S. Paul. Now ſeeing in thoſe Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphraſtes, Ignatius is ſaid to ſucceed Euodius, as Euodius ſucceeded Peter (foreign) and the Anonymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius, which remains unprinted, hath the ſame, foreign Ignatius ſucceeded Euodius, and ſeeing this ordination of Ignatius is alſo ſaid by††in foreign Theodores, and by**Epiſt: ad Zenon: Felix III. Biſhop p. 64of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter, This ſeeming difference is removed by**in Chron: (MS. Oxon:) l. 10. Ioannes Malela Antiochenus, who thus ſets down the whole matter, foreign, When Peter went to Rome, paſſing by Antioch the great, Euodius Biſhop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die, and Ignatius (who was, as was ſaid, firſt conſtituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there) received the Biſhoprick (that I ſuppoſe muſt now be, of the Iewiſh Province alſo; over which Euodius had been in his life time) S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him, And ſo that is become moſt clear which**En…om: Ignat: S. Chryſoſtome ſaid of this Ignatius, that foreign &c. the hands of the bleſſed Apoſtles, (in the plural, firſt of Paul, then of Peter) had been laid on Ignatius.

Num. 6 The other part which concerned Rome, * was ſo cleared by the words of Epiphanius, Sect. 9.who ſaith of Peter and Paul both, that they were foreign, Apoſtles and Biſhops at Rome, and ſo many other evidences produced to the ſame purpoſe, from the inſcription on their tombs, by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus, by Dionyſius Biſhop of Corinth, by Prosper, by the ſeals of the Popes, and ſo again by the Eccleſiaſtick ſtory, Sect. 12.that makes Clemens S. Peters Deacon and ſucceſſor in the Biſhoprick, and Linus S. Paul's that ſure there can be no need of farther proofs or teſtimonies from Antiquity in this matter.

Num. 7 Whilſt in the mean, other Churches are * inſtanced in, particularly the Churches of Aſia, Sect. 14.wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command, and S. Peter had nothing to doe, whether in planting or governing them, which alone is ſufficient to carry the whole matter againſt S. Peter's univerſal Paſtorſhip, and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that ſo conſiderable a part of my probation, OnelyOnly inſtead of it, a farre more compendious way, that of the ſcornfull or fastidious ſcoſſing at my wiſely laid ground, as he pleaſeth to call it, and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity &c.

p. 65Num. 8 As to the ſecond branch of his ſuggeſtion, that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England, that is no where ſaid by me, OnelyOnly thus, that upon ſuppoſition, if the ſaying of Simeon Metaphraſtes (ſpeaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Biſhops in England, Neronis 12) ſhould be thought to have truth in it, it muſt be extended no farther than the Iewes, which might at that time be disperſed there.

Num. 9 Where, as my concluſion from that ſuppoſition is founded in the analogie, that as, where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation, they divided their Province &c. ſo in reaſon it ought to be, where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes, or Ioſeph of Arimathea met in like manner, ſo all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm, is onelyonly this, that it was poſſible they that were disperſed in ſo many regions, might be, ſome of them, diſperſed in Britannie, which how improbable ſoever it may appear at that time, is ſure as probable, as that S. Peter preached and ordained Biſhops in Britannie, and in conſequence to that onelyonly it was, that I made the ſuppoſition of the poſſibility of it, knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries, that Joſeph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes ('tis poſſible alſo that Simeon Metaphraſtes might miſtake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end) planted the faith in this Iſland.

Num. 10 As for his laſt ſuggeſtion, that I cite Saint Proſper, that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome, I deſire the truth of it may be conſidered by the words which I cite from him, In ipſa Hieruſalem Iacobus & Ioannes apud Epheſum, Andreas & caeteri per totam Aſiam, Petrus & Paulus Apoſtoli in urbe Roma Gentium Eccleſiam pacatam unamque poſteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione ſacrârunt, James at Jeruſalem, John at Epheſus, Andrew and the reſt through all Aſia, Peter and Paul at Rome, conſecrated the Church of the Nations. What Nations were theſe, ſure of Jewes, as well as Gentiles, elſe Jeruſalem could not be any part of them, no nor John's converts at Epheſus, for they were Iewes, and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to ſubſtitute the word Gentiles for Nations, and yet could not, without doing ſo, have made this exception to my words.

p. 66Num. 11 And ſo much for exceptions to my firſt evidence againſt the Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of Saint Peter.

Sect. VIII.

No promiſe of Keyes to S. Peter, which was not made and performed to all the Apoſtles, Joh. 20. 21. the completion of the promiſe, Mat. 16. 19. Paſce oves. Joh. 21. an exhortation, not commiſſion.

Num. 1 THe ſecond ſort of Exceptions follows, thoſe againſt my evidence drawn from the power of the Keyes, which I ſay, and prove both from Scripture, and expreſſe teſtimonies of the Fathers, that it was given equally to all the Apoſtles; And his exceptions begin thus:

Num. 2 A ſecond evidence he bringeth from the donation of the Keyes, which he ſaith were given equally to the Apoſtles, Mat. 28. yet confeſſeth the Keyes were eſpecially promiſed to S. Peter, Mat. 16. but performed onelyonly in common, Mat. 28. which though they may be both true, yet is abſurdly ſaid, for who acknowledgeth a ſpecial promiſe, ſhould have found out a ſpecial performance, which is done, Joh. 21.

Num. 3 This exception being not to the matter of what I ſay, but to the abſurdneſſe of the expreſſion (to which cenſure I muſt ſuppoſe every thing liable, which is contrary to his pretenſions, and yet proved ſo manifeſtly that it cannot be denied by him) I ſhall briefly evidence how commodious, and proper the expreſſion was.

Num. 4 And 1. whereas he ſets it down as my confeſſion, that the Keyes were especially promiſed to S. Peter, this is not with truth ſuggeſted; My words are,Sect. 20. This power Mat. 16. 19. is promiſed to S. Peter] But the [especially] is an interpolation of this Gentleman's, to prepare my words for his exceptions, for which otherwiſe they were no way qualified.

Num. 5 All that can be fetcht from any words of mine toward this ſenſe, is, that in the next Section, I foreſaw, and ſo mentioned an objection from Chriſt's making this promiſe to him peculiarly (and yet even that is not, to him eſpecially, but to him particularly, p. 67or ſingly, I will give unto thee &c.) To this, as to an objection, I preſently made reply, that the repetition of that promiſe Mat. 18. 18. to all the Apoſtles indefinitely, and without any peculiarity of reſtriction (I ſay to you, in the plural, and, Whatſoever ye ſhall binde &c.) will take away all appearance from this objection.

Num. 6 And ſo it will from this Gentleman's exception alſo, For if what was at one time promiſed to S. Peter ſingly, was ſo ſoon after promiſed to all the Apostles indefinitely, what abſurdity is there in ſeeking no other performance of this promiſe, than that which was at once afforded to all the Apoſtles together, in the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, when the fire, that repreſented that Spirit, divided and ſat upon every one of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghoſt, and no ſhew of peculiarity, or mark of especiall eminence to S Peter in all this.

Num. 7 As ſuppoſe a Generall ſhould promiſe a Commiſſion this day to one, and to morrow ſhould make the like promiſe to eleven more, that one being in their company, and then, upon a ſet day, ſome weeks after, ſhould ſend 12 Commiſſions ſealed to thoſe 12, one for each of them, I wonder who would doubt of the exact performance of this promiſe to that firſt, or ſeek for any more ſpecial performance of it.

Num. 8 But this Gentleman having phanſied a ſpecial promiſe (as that is with him ſomewhat more than a particular promiſe, for otherwiſe a common performance might have ſerved the turn, it being certain that an Vniverſal contains every particular under it) muſt needs have a ſpecial performance, and that Ioh. 21. I ſuppoſe in thoſe words of Chriſt to S. Peter, Feed my ſheep, and, Feed my lambs, thrice repeated.

Num. 9 But for this, 1. I cannot acknowledge that it hath any particular reference to the words of the promiſe, Mat. 16. 19. The promiſe was, I will give thee the Keyes—and, Whatſoever thou ſhalt binde—And ſure the direct completion of this, as farre as could be expected from Chriſt perſonally, whilſt he was here on earth, is that of Ioh. 20. 21. where, as the ſending or commiſſionating is anſwerable to giving the Keyes, the inſigne of the OEconomus, ſo remitting and retaining of ſins is all one with the binding and looſing.

p. 68Num. 10 As for that which is after this Chap. 21. It is I. by that very poſition of it; but 2. more by the occaſion; and yet more 3. by the matter of the words, prejudged from being any more than an exhortation to diſcharge that duty, for which in the former Chap: he, with the reſt of the twelve, had received his commiſſion, and ſo is ſtill as farre from being a ſpeciall performance, as that of Matth. 16. had been from a ſpecial promiſe.

Num. 11 The Paſce oves, Feed my ſheep and lambs, thrice repeated, was certainly a direction to him how he might approve his love to that Maſter and Saviour, whom he had thrice renounced, teſtifie it now to be a ſincere conſtant love (ſuch as would caſt out all fear of danger, through which formerly he had fallen) by an eminent diligence in diſcharge of that Paſtoral office, which was intruſted to him, but 'twas not ſo much as an intimation, that his diligence would be actually greater than all others (for ſure S. Paul ſaid truth, that he laboured more abundantly than they all, of whom S. Peter was one) but rather that he, that after ſuch profeſſions had fallen ſo foully, had the more need now of having this proof of his love inculcated and preſt, leſt he ſhould fail again (much leſſe is it a ſealing any power or authority to him, above that which before had been conferred on him, and with him on thoſe others alſo.

Num. 12 And nothing being here offered to prove that there was any more of energie, or ſpecial commiſſion in theſe words, but onelyonly the thing crudely affirmed, by naming Ioh. 21. there is no need of making any farther anſwer, a bare deniall is a proportionable return to an unproved affirmation.

Num. 13 OnelyOnly this I ſhall adde, that 'tis certain that S. Peter thus underſlood the reiteration of Chriſt's queſtion, as a reproach of his three denialls; The Text ſaith, Peter was grieved, becauſe he ſaid unto him the third time, Loveſt thou me? Which ſure he would not have been, if he had looked on it, as an introduction to ſo great a preferment, as it muſt be, if the ſupremacy and Vniverſal Paſtorſhip of the Church were by thoſe words conferred on him.

p. 69Sect. IX.

Of the peculiarity of the power given to S. Peter.

Num. 1 TO this head of diſcourſe about the power of the Keyes follows a ſecond Exception in theſe words,

Num. 2 Again he would perſwade the world that the Catholick Church holdeth, none had the Keyes but S. Peter, Sect. 2.calling it a peculiarity and incloſure of S. Peter, as if the other Apostles had them not, which is a calumnie.

Num. 3 How far I have been in this matter from calumniating the whole Catholick Church, or any one member of it, will appear by this brief review of what is there ſaid, It is this, The power of the Keyes is promiſed S. Peter, Mat. 16. but to him that from hence, i. e. from the promiſing it to him ſingly in that place, pretends this donative and conſequent power as a peculiarity and incloſure of Peter's, two conſiderations are there offered, and thought ſufficient to ſuperſede any ſuch concluſion.

Num. 4 Here certainly a bare ſuppoſition will not be the accuſing or conſequently accuſing falſly, i. e. calumniating of any. If no man ſay this, beſides my loſing my pains in ſuperſeding ſuch a (but poſſible) concluſion, there is no other harm done. OnelyOnly I ſhall demand, Is that promiſe of the Keyes to Saint Peter, Mat. 16. made uſe of by a Romaniſt to prove Chriſt's promiſe of ſome ſpecial power to S. Peter, which was not promiſed to the other Apoſtles? If this Gentleman anſwer, No; then 1. I muſt inferre, that this Gentleman is no Romaniſt, becauſe in this very page he mentions the firſt words of this text, Tues Petrus, as one of the two moſt conſiderable texts of Scripture, fit to be alledged for S. Peter's ſupremacy. 2. I ſhall conclude from this his preſent ſuppoſed negation, together with his own words in the laſt Paragraph, that the words of Chriſt, Ioh. 21. Feed my ſheep &c.] were not the inſtating of any power on S. Peter, which was not common alſo to the reſt of the Apoſtles, for thoſe words Ioh. 21. were, ſaith he, a ſpecial performance, anſwerable to that promiſe of the Keyes to Peter, Mat. 16. as a ſpecial promiſe, and conſequently if there were p. 70nothing in that promiſe peculiar to S. Peter, there was nothing in that performance peculiar to him. And ſo neither he nor any Romaniſt muſt henceforth conclude any thing for S. Peter from either of thoſe particular addreſſes of Chriſt to him, Mat. 16. or Ioh. 21. which they will not equally yeild from thence to all the other Apoſtles; And then that will more compendiouſly perform what I by a greater circuit of conſiderations indevoured to doe, i. e. ſuperſede all the Romaniſts concluſions from one or both theſe places; for certainly if they pretend not to inferre ſomewhat for S. Peter, which is not by them equally granted to all the reſt of the Apoſtles, all that thoſe texts will be able to doe, is to confute the Preſbyterie, not to eſtabliſh the Papacie, no more being from hence deducible for the Biſhop of Rome the ſucceſſor of one Apoſtle, than for the ſeverall other Biſhops, ſucceſſours of the other Apoſtles.

Num. 5 But if upon the ſight of theſe conſequences, he ſhall now ſay, that in this of Mat. 16. 19. there is any thing, be it never ſo little (ſo as to be capable of the phraſe a ſpecial promiſe) enſured upon S. Peter, which was not elſewhere promiſed alſo to the other Apoſtles, I ſhall then conclude, that it ſeems I have not calumniated him, or the Church which he defends, in ſaying that they make this power a peculiarity and incloſure of Saint Peter, for ſo it muſt be, if it belong to him and not to others.

Num. 6 And 'tis not ſufficient to ſay that the power of the Keyes was common to him with the other Apoſtles, but yet ſome other ſpecial power was there reſerved to S. Peter, For of that ſpecialty, whatſoever it is, my preſent Dilemma proceeds, and deſires to be informed, whether any Romaniſt conclude it from that text of Mat. 16. and if he doe not, then the inconveniences will preſſe him, which I have here mentioned. If he doe then I ſhall now conclude anew (not that the Catholick Church, but) that this Catholick Gentleman holds that which he will not be able to prove, becauſe there is not the leaſt minute portion of power promiſed to him in that 16 Chap: which is not elſewhere promiſed to all the Apoſtles; Peter is called a ſtone, on which the Church ſhall be built, and to p. 71Peter the Keyes are promiſed; and the twelve Apoſtles are in like manner, and all equally twelve foundation-ſtones of the ſame building, and the Keyes are equally promiſed to all them. And this being there proved at large §. 21. and the probations extended, not onelyonly to the power of the Keyes, but (after) to the compellation of Tues Petrus (and they will be extenſible to all the moſt diminutive imaginary fractions of either of thoſe powers) I ſhall farther conclude, that whatſoever he ſhall now return to this Dilemma, will equally ſecure me from having calumniated either him, or the Church maintained by him.

Sect. X.

Sitting on twelve Thrones, Mat. 19.

Num. 1 HIs third Exception to this Chap: is to another interpretation of mine, which it ſeems hath not the luck to approve it ſelf to him, Thus,

Num. 2 I cannot paſſe without noting another odde interpretation of Scripture, in his 20 Sect. out of Mat. 19. ſpeaking of the twelve Thrones at the day of Judgment, he explicates, to rule or preſide in the Church.

Num. 3 I doe acknowledge to underſtand the twelve Thrones, Mat. 19. of the Apoſtles ruling and preſiding in the Church, and S. Auguſtine long before ſo underſtood it, and if Chriſt's ſitting on the throne of his glory may be the interpretation of foreign, whether it be rendred in the regeneration, or in the reſurrection, meaning thereby Chriſt's reſurrection and aſcenſion to the throne of his glory, there will then be no difficulty ſo to underſtand it, that when Chriſt was gone to heaven, theſe ſhould ſucceed him in the government of his Church on earth, and ſo (as the Phylarchae ruled and judged the ſeverall tribes of Iſrael) exerciſe judicature, binde and looſe, excommunicate and abſolve in the Church, no one having the foreign, any more than of order, among them.

Num. 4 But this Gentleman gives no reaſon for preferring any other interpretation, onelyonly calls mine an odde one, And when I p. 72have replied firſt, that this place comes in ex abundanti, onelyonly as it is (being thus interpreted) in concord with that other of Mat. 16. & 18. and therefore ſecondly, it is not an odde one, and thirdly, the cauſe in hand will ſtand as firm, though this interpretation ſhould be found to have no truth in it: fourthly, that my interpretation is reconcileable with his, and therefore his, if granted, will not be excluſive of mine, they that ſhall judge the world hereafter may for ſome time have preſided in the Church, and ſo alſo judged here; fifthly, that this place, and the grounds of this interpretation are**Annot: on Mat. 19. d. and Power of Keyes, c. 5. §. 13.Matt 19 elſewhere inſiſted on at large, I ſhall need adde no more to this ſingle diſlike of his, in this place.

Sect. XI.

The equivalence of foreign and foreign. Twelve foundation-ſtones.

Num. 1 HE concludes with ſome ſhew of diſlike of what I had ſaid to the vulgar place of Tues Petrus, Thus,

Num. 2 His quibling about the word is ſo light a thing, as it is not worth conſideration, the ſenſe being plain, that upon Peter the Church was built ſpecially, though not with excluſion of others.

Num. 3 What I ſaid of the equivalence and perfect identity of the words, foreign and foreign. for a ſtone, ſeemed to me particularly uſefull to the underſtanding of the meaning of Chriſt's ſpeech, when he ſaid, he would build his Church on this foreign. or foreign, i. e. this ſtone. For not to mention what hath by divers of the Antients been ſaid of that text, applying it not to the perſon of S. Peter, but to the faith, where of he then had newly made confeſſion, I was here willing to grant the Romaniſt the utmoſt that he could pretend to, viz: that the perſon of Peter was that Petra or ſtone, on which Chriſt promiſed to build his Church: And why this Gentleman ſhould be ſo unwilling to be gratified, or why the ſetting down the bare notation of the Greek word, ſhould deſerve his reproach, and be called quibling or levity, I profeſſe I can render no reaſon p. 73but his haſte, which permitted him not to conſider either the undeniable truth, or his own advantages from what was ſaid.

Num. 4 The force of my anſwer lay in another branch of that fourth Section, viz: that this ſtone, from whence Peter had his name, peculiarly relating to a building, and ſo being to be conſidered as a foundation ſtone, not onelyonly he, but all the reſt of the Apostles were herein made equall with Peter, being all partakers of this common appellation, foreign twelve foundations, Apoc. 21. 14. and thoſe by circumſtances in that text manifeſted to have an equal proportion of power and Province aſſigned to each of them. And to this there is nothing here anſwered by this Gentleman, and his unprovoked quarrel at that, which was ſaid concerning the nature of the word, is an indication that he had nothing more to object to it.

Num. 5 When therefore he ſaith, that on Peter the Church was built especially, I demand what he means by ſpecially? If no more than that he was one ſpecial perſon, on whom the Church was built, then I grant it, and reply, that ſo was John, and ſo was Andrew, and ſo was every other of the twelve, a ſpecial foundation-ſtone of the Church. But if by [specially.] he mean in an extraordinary, or more eminent manner, than any of the other Apoſtles, Then I anſwer, 1. that Chriſt's telling him he was a ſtone on which he would build his Church, implies no ſuch matter, the other Apostles each of them are by Chriſt, in viſion to S. John, affirmed to be foundations of this building, as well as he; 2. That among foundation-ſtones there is but one, that hath any eminence above others, and that is the foreign, the chief or head-corner-ſtone, and that title belongs not to S. Peter (as neither to any other Apoſtle) but onelyonly to Chriſt himſelf, Epheſ. 2. 20. And ſo ſtill nothing belongs to Peter in this matter of being a ſtone or foundation, which doth not equally appear to belong to thoſe others, as well as him. And ſo much for the vindicating of the Evidences ſet down in the fourth Chapter.