Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 6
VI. They affirm, That St. Peter's Faith hath failed.
Anſwer.
THere needs no more to make him confeſs the truth of this, than only to ask him, whether St. Peter did not deny his Maſter; which our Saviour ſuppoſes in the words immediately following thoſe he quotes,Luk. XXII. 32. Luk. 22.32. When thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy Brethren. He was therefore out of the way for a time; which is all we mean when any of us ſay, Peter's Faith hath failed. Not finally, but for that preſent. He fell, though he recovered himſelf. So that this is an Equivocal Propoſition, Peter's Faith hath failed, which is true; and ſo is the contrary, his faith hath not failed. Both are true in different reſpects: It did fail, and that notoriouſly, when he denied his Maſter over and over: But it was more ſtedfaſt afterward, even by his fall; which our Saviour foreſeeing, prayed particularly for him, that he might not utterly miſcarry. Which is no Prerogative, as this man fancies it, that Chriſt prayed principally for him, but rather tended to his diſparagement, as denoting him to be weaker than the reſt; and indeed ſo much the weaker, becauſe in his own opinion he was the ſtrongeſt.
The ſecond Text Mat. 16.18.XVI. Mat. 18. as he manages it, is expreſly to another purpoſe. For he lays the weight of his Diſcourſe (it appears by the conſequence he draws) upon thoſe words, the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt: What? the Text ſaith expreſly againſt it, that is the Church, not againſt thee, that is, Peter. They that are wiſer, argue from the foregoing words, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, &c. If this be to his purpoſe, the faith of St. Peter muſt be the Rock upon which the Church is built (which they do not love to hear of) and if it be the Rock, was thrown down, and the gates of hell prevailed againſt it, at the time before mention'd, when he denied his Maſter. Which made a great man *Dr. Jackſ. L. 3. c. 7.ſay, Doubtleſs that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter's faith, which was not ſecured from a threefold denial of Chriſt, was firſt planted by the ſpirit of error and Antichriſt.
The third Text we had before in the ſecond Chapter, where I have anſwered his queſtion,XXIII. Matth. 2, 3 how Chriſt might command the people and his Diſciples alſo, to do whatſoever they that ſat in Moſes his chair bad them, and yet thoſe Doctors might err. But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail, he aſſerts the Scribes and Phariſees, when they ſat in Moſes his Chair, could not err; which is to juſtifie their putting our Lord Chriſt to death. Whither will not the folly of ſuch men as this, carry them? who mind not when they overthrow the Chriſtian Religion, to eſtabliſh their own conceits. Nay, this man doth not mind, when he ruins even his own conceits. For if the truth of Chriſtian Religion hath been no better preſerved by the Romaniſts in the Chair of St. Peter, than the truth of the Jewiſh Religion was preſerved by the Scribes and Phariſees in the Chair of Moſes, the Roman Church is certainly become Antichriſtian.
He hath pickt up a fourth Text, which hath nothing in it of Peter, XI. Joh. 49, 51.no more than the former, but only tells us, that the Jewiſh High Prieſt Prophecied, XI. Joh. 49, 51. Yet this is an expreſs Text, forſooth, to prove that Peter's faith could not fail. It is not eaſie to have patience enough, ſo much as to read ſuch wretched, nay wicked ſtuff, as this. Which ſtill proves, if it be to the purpoſe, that the High Prieſt ſpeaking forth of his Chair, could not but determine truly; and, conſequently, gave a right judgment when he condemned Chriſt to be put to death. For he ſat in the ſame Chair, when he paſſed ſentence on Chriſt, and when he thus Prophecied; both were in a Council, which was aſſembled on purpoſe to reſolve what to do with him, XI. Joh. 47. XXVI. Mat. 57.
Here the good man is in great want of Fathers, and contents himſelf, becauſe he cannot help it, with Leo; whoſe words he doth not rightly tranſlate. For Leo doth not ſay, If the Head were invincible, but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered. Worſted it was for the preſent, though not quite overcome. For he loſt the confeſſion of Faith with his mouth, ſaith Theophylact, though he kept the Faith (or the ſeeds of faith, as he ſpeaks) in his heart. But unleſs a man do confeſs with his mouth, as well as believe in his heart, he cannot be ſaved. Both are neceſſary, unleſs St. Paul croſs St. Peter, X. Rom. 9, 10.
But what is all this to the purpoſe? ſuppoſe St. Peter's faith did not fail, what then? Muſt we conclude from thence, the Pope's faith cannot fail? Stay there. One of his own Communion, a great man*Launoy Part V. Epiſt. ad Jac. Bevillaq. indeed, hath ſhown, that there being four Interpretations of this place (XXII. Luk. 32.) the greateſt number of Eccleſiaſtical Writers (he reckons up XLIV. and among the reſt this Pope Leo) expound it of the Faith of Peter alone, which Chriſt prayed might not be loſt in that time of Temptation which was a coming. But next to this, they are moſt numerous who think Chriſt prayed for the Ʋniverſal Church, that it may never fail in the faith. In which number is Thomas Aquinas, one of their Saints; who expreſly proves from this place, that the Univerſal Church cannot err, becauſe he who was always heard by God, ſaid to Peter, upon whoſe confeſſion the Church is founded, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Where it is evident, he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter ſeparately from the reſt of the Church; but for the whole Church, whoſe perſon Peter ſuſtained, as St. Auſtin is wont to ſpeak: Or, as Gregory the Great's words are, of which Church he was the firſt Member.
But this belongs to the next Head; where he ſaith we affirm,