The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 3 · Section 4
Sect. 4.
foreign, Act. 1. Theophylacts, and Oecumenius's Scholion, &c. The division of Provinces betwixt St Paul and St Peter. Ambroses, and Jeroms testimonies, and Theophylacts. This by their own agreement, not only by Gods designation. Exclusive of no other of the Apostles. Peters singular supremacy at Jerusalem, why denyed. Clements testimonie. The principall place belonged to James in his own See, and so in the Councel. foreign, Acts 15.22. Peters speaking first. St Pauls no dependence on St Peter. A place from St. Cyprian, answered. The testimony out of Anacletus's Epistle.
THe fourth Section is but the spreading a little thinner the Catholike Gentlemans letter, and hath been fully answered in the Reply, c. 2. §. 3. So also the 5th Section is answered in Reply, c. 3. 1. and the 6th Sect. c. 3. Sect. 2. & 4. So again his 7th Sect. (all but the calumnies, and ridiculous colours, that without the least cause or ground in the Tract, he affixes to my way of proceeding, as will appear to any one that reads the Tract it selfe) is prevented, Ch. 4. Sect. 1.
After this he hath another 7 Sect. p. 42. but that nothing but a detortion of my words about foreign, Act. 1. making that my evidence, which was never by me thought on, as such (nor had I need of such, the thing being evident by its own light, that the Apostles went not all to one, but disposed themselves over all the world to severall provinces) yet borrowed from the short notes of the Catholike Gentleman, and answered, Reply c. 4. Sect. 2.
Of the 8th Sect. three, or four pages are spent on the phrase foreign, going to his own place, Acts 1. and is of the same nature exactly with the former, and as largely prevented, Reply c. 4. Sect. 2. n. 20. &c. and yet upon this he pitches anew, with the greatest career of declamation, that he ever let loose to, in the whole book, and spends it all in a passionate paraenesis to his dear countreymen; the effect of which is, that the rendring that phrase of any thing but Judas's going to hell, is to relinquish the sense of the whole Catholike world. My reasons for the other interpretation of Matthias his going to that Province which should otherwise have been assigned Judas, I have largely rendred in the Reply, and shall now annex a testimonie perfectly to my sense from Theophylact, on Acts 1. foreign, &c. he calls that his own place, which Matthias, so as it was just and fit, should obtain; for as Judas was a stranger to it, even before he had fallen from it, ever since he began to be sicke of covetousness and treason, so it properly belonged to Matthias, even before he obtained it, ever since he shewed himselfe worthy of so great an office. The like again we have from*Edit. Veron. 1532. Oecumenius on the place, who setting down, as his use is, the most approved interpretations hath these words, foreign, His own place] he calls his suffocation, &c. or else that Judas being gone, he, i. e. Matthias, may have the place to himselfe, receiving his Episcopacy. So Didymus, the word foreign place signifies many things, among the rest an Order, as when we say the place of a Bishop, or of an Elder. So the Ordinary gloss, ut abiret in locum suum, i. e. Sortem Apostolicam, …hat he might go to his own place, i. e. the Apostolical lot. Would ever any man have thought that all these should have been thus adventurous to mention such a blasphemous interpretation as this (just the same with the Drs) or that Lorinus and Salmeron should take notice of them, without any expression of detestation, when S. W. had undertaken on his word to his kind readers and deare countreymen, that it was the utmost absurdity, that it inferred the finding of Judas a Diocess in hell, and Matthias succeeding him?
What follows there of the agreement made between S. Peter, and S. Paul, concerning the division of their Provinces, the one to the Jewes, the other to the Gentiles, and is matter to S. W. of such challenge, and triumph, is cleared in the same Chap. of the Replie, Sect. 3. and 4. to be a mistake in him, and all that I pretend, manifested from Scripture. To which I now adde the plain words of St Ambrose on Gal. 2.8. wherein he asserts all that was either my purpose, or my interest to affirme, in these words,*Petrum solum nominat, & sibi comparat, quia Primatum ipse acceperat ad fūdandam Ecclesiam, se quo{que} pari modo electum, ut Primatum habeat in fund…ndis G…ntium Ecclesiis. Paul saith he, nameth Peter alone, and compareth him to himselfe, because he had received the primacy to build the Church, and he likewise is chosen to have the primacie of building the Churches of the Gentiles (and so Chrysost. that St. Paul demonstrates himself to be foreign, equall to them, foreign, and compares himself with Peter the chief of them, and Theophylact, foreign, he shewes himselfe equall to Peter) ita tamen ut & Petrus praedicaret Gentibus, si causa suisset, & Paulus Judaeis, nam uter{que} invenitur utrum{que} fecisse, sed tamen plena authoritas Petro in Judaismi praedicatione data agnoscitur, & Pauli perfecta authoritas in praedicatione gentium invenitur, Yet so that Peter preached to the Gentiles also, if there were cause, and Paul to the Jewes, and so both of them did both: but yet the full authority is acknowledged to be given to Peter in the preaching to the Jewes, and Pauls perfect authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles, from whence also he cals himselfe the Doctor of the Gentiles, adding that this portion was assigned him, in respect of his abilities, it being harder to attract to the faith, those that were far from God, then those that were neer. And so S. Hierom having affirmed, on Gal. 1.22. that the Churches which were of the Jewes scorsim habebantur, nec his qui erant è Gentibus miscebantur, were severed, and mixed not with the Gentiles, he addes on this verse of c. 2. That the agreement was made that Paul should preach to the Gentiles, and Peter, and James, and John to the Jewes, which sure was a severing of their Provinces. And so Theophylact on Gal. 1.21. foreign, being come to Judea, he departed thence, both because he was sent a preacher to the Gentiles, and because he would not build on anothers foundation.
Yet one little deceit there is in S. W. his discourse which the Catholike Gentleman had not attained to, for on occasion of the [for] Gal. 2.8. his conclusion is, that these two Apostles were more properly particularized to these two parts of the world, by no other designation, than the more especial co-operation of Gods efficacious assistance. Here the mention of Gods special co-operation hath truth in it, and is fully proved from vers. 8. but the [no other designation] (wherein all the force of his answer lyes) is most expresly contrarie to plain Scripture, the Text affirming, that besides that, this d…signation of mutual agreement intervened, James, …ephas and Joh…, saith Paul, gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the ci…cumcision. What can be more evident for this farther designation, founded in that former?
His 9th Section hath somewhat new in it (but perfectly agreeable to the mistak… and detortions gleaned from the Catholike Gentleman) as 1. that he will conclu…e from my words, that I will have all the Apostles to have several Provinces limiting th…ir jurisdictions, and exclusive of one anothers right, and from thence making the circumcision, or J…wish Christians peculiarly Saint Peters province, and the Gentile Christians peculiarly St. Pauls, I have gotten all the rest of the Apostles leave to play] And then there is another prime dish for Mr. Stationer to adde to his Bill of fare. 'Tis true, I said the Apostles by their own act distributed their universal great Province (the whole world, to which they were to go and preach) into several distributions, or lots, or lesser Provinces, one or more to go one way, and the other another, to proclaim the faith of Christ, and that the circumcision was peculiarly St. Peters province, or division assigned to him (and thence I concluded it unimaginable, how he should be the universal or supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world:) But what word said I of concluding all the Jewish Christians under S. Peters assignation, or all the Gentiles under Pauls? from which alone his conclusion of the play-day for the rest of the Apostles is inferred? Nay when he had set it down for my affirmation, that I will have all the Apostles have their severall Provinces, is it possible he should, in the same breath, conclude me to deprive eleven of these all of their several Provinces? When I say Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision, exclusively to the uncircumcision (as when Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. 1. saith, that he preacht in divers nations, foreign, to the Jewes that were of the dispersion) the meaning is evident, that he was so the Apostle of the one, as he was not of the other, or as Paul was, and is in Scripture said to be of the other. But can it thence follow, that either no other Apostle was assigned to the Jewes, but Peter, or no other to the Gentiles, but Paul? Nay is it not expresly shewed §. 6. that the Jewes in Judea were by Peter, James, and John put under James the brother of the Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem? And §. 3. that the other Apostles had their several foreign assigned them, and their travels, labours, and plantations proportionable thereto, and that S. John was assigned the Jewes for his Province, as well as S. Peter, and so had the converting and governing of the Lydian Asia, and placing Bishops there. This in both parts he takes notice of, p. 57. but never relents at the foregoing calumnie, onelyonly laughs it out, and despises the remainder of the dispersion of the Jews, as a few pitiful parishes, unworthy S. Peter, but never offers to consider the allegations, by which it was evident, and can never be avoided by him or any man, that the Jewes in the Lydian Asia were governed by S. John (and from thence it was that they had and reteined several customes, different from those which were introduced in the West by S. Peter) And must this be styled the freeing all the rest of that taske which their Master had enjoyned them? If this be to conclude, or dispute, what contradictories may not this wonder-working faculty reconcile?
Secondly, he excepts against my use of the word [singular] when I say Peter had no singular supremacy at Jerusalem. To take away his wonderment, I answer, that by singular, I meane such an one, as was not common to the other two eminent Apostles Iames and Iohn, who together with Peter committed the Bishoprick of Ierusalem, the Metropolis then of all Iudea at least, to the Lords brother; What he saith in this matter, p. 58. that Peters greater authority is not invalidated by his taking the other two with him, any more than is the Arch-bishops, when in consecrating a Bishop, he takes two other Bishops with him] is true, in case it any other way appeared, that Peter was an Arch-bishop in respect of these two other Suffragan Bishops, Iames and Iohn: But this neither doth, nor ever will be made to appear by him, and though I did not then undertake to prove their aequality by this argument, being about another matter, the extent of S. Peters Province, yet the words of Clemens foreign: l. 5. might to him, who had this conclusion in his eye, have deserved to be considered, when he saith of Peter, and Iames, and Iohn, foreign, as being by our Lord prefer'd or honoured before the rest, yet they did not foreign contend for dignity, but chose Iames the first Bishop of Ierusalem, where the foreign or precedence that Peter had from Christ, is common to Iames and Iohn also, and so no singular supremacy, and as such, they chose and ordain'd the brother of the Lord, which sure is not after the manner of an Archbishop and his Suffragan Bishops. And so also in that place to the Galatians, c. 2.9. Iames, & Cephas and Iohn are equally dignified by S. Paul, and have all three the style of foreign, seeming to be pillars, and as the Fathers even now concluded that Paul was foreign to them, and particularly to Peter, so they did also, that they were all foreign, equally dignified.
Thirdly, when I had said of Iames the Lords brother, not that he was simply superior to Peter, but that being fixt Bishop of Ierusalem, all the Bishops of Iudea were subject to him, and that thereupon in this his See, he is named before Peter and Iohn, Gal. 2.9. and hath the principal place in the Councel (where S. Peter is present) and gives the sentence, Acts 15.19. on which the Rescript is founded, vers. 22. and from all this conclude no more, but that the jurisdiction in that Metropolis belonged to Iames the Iust, and not to S. Peter; All this he is willing to misunderstand, as a proof of mine, to infer S. Iames's priority of dignity, or greater authority, and to frame some answer to the severall branches of it. But he may know, that as I do not believe S. Peter had any greater authority then the rest of the Apostles, so I doe not pretend that any of the other Apostles had greater authority than hee, much lesse this Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem, who, I suppose, was none of the 12. Apostles. Only I was to prove that in this his See Iames was considered as Bishop, and so even in Peters presence had the principal place (and indeed if he was not there in that capacity, how came he there at all, for upon reasons elsewhere given, I suppose it competently establisht, that this Iames was none of the twelve) and against this what he pretends, is not of any weight: For
1. When he saith, that the naming him before Peter, Gal. 2.9. is, if it were allowed any weight, the losing my cause, because in most other places of Scripture, Peter is constantly named first of all the Apostles, This I am sure hath no force in it, because this place belonging peculiarly to the Councel of Ierusalem, the giving Iames, which was none of the twelve, the first place here, must in all reason signifie thus much, that he was Bishop there, and that is all, in effect, that I deduce from it, and not from that alone, but from it in conjuncture with o…her circumstances.
2dly When he saith, I have not the least pr…t…nce of a testimonie that Iames had the p i…cipal place, it is evident that Saint Pauls naming him first before Peter, is a pretence at least of a testimonie, as far as belongs to Ierusalem. And if there be not the least force in that, this will be somewhat to the prejudice of the Romanists argument, that is wont to be taken from the foreign, concluding his Primacy from his …eing first named which if it would convincingly prove, then must Iames here have it, who yet pretends not to it, any farther than in his own city. But then sure the mention of Iames's giving the sentence, v. 19. was another pretence of a testimonie, and this I still believe the phrase [foreign, wherefore I judge, or, my sentence is: wil be found to signifie, and not onelyonly, as he saith, his opinion or judgment in the matter. For 1. tis*Tom. 4. p. 795. A. S. Chrysostomes observation, that his speaking last was founded in his being Bishop of Jerusalem, foreign, he was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, whereupon he speaks last (according to the customes in Assemblies, he that sits first, speaks last) adding upon 19, 20, 21. of that chapter, foreign — he rightly decrees, ordains these things, making his sentence foreign, a decree, and yet more expresly, setting down*P. 796. l. 28. the foreign good order observed in their speaking. After Peter, saith he, Paul speaks, and foreign, James forbears, and interposes not, for he was intrusted with the principality: and*lin. 33. again observing that Peter spake more earnestly, but James more mildly, saith, foreign, for thus it behoves him that is in great power, or authority, to leave the sharper things to others, and himselfe to draw his arguments from the gentler, and milder Topickes, making James here in this Councel clearly superior to Peter.
As for the argument which I had drawn from foreign I judge] I see not yet any infirmity in it. For thus sure the word signifies in the matter of censures, 1 Cor. 5.12. foreign, judging or sentencing to excommunication, ver. 13. and so v. 3. foreign, I have judged already, i. e. given sentence: and so saith*P. 797 lin. 15. S. Chrysostome here of James, foreign, I judge, in stead of, I say with power or, as other copies read, foreign, hee saith with power, I judge. But this I never meant any otherwise, than as a sentence pronounce… by him, and agreed to by the rest, and founded, as any conciliary sen…ence ought to be, in the foreign, which supposes the good liking of those others, that sate with him together in Councel, not as depending only on his vote. And this is enough to confirm to him the principal place in that Councel.
What he adds to prejudge the Rescripts being founded, v. 22. upon S. James's sentence in particular, that tis but only, Then (i. e. after S. Peter, S. Paul, Barnabas, and S. James had spoken) it seemed good to the Ap…stles and Elders—] is 1. founded in a misunderstanding of my assertion, and 2. is it selfe a farther mistake. For when I said James gave the sentence, I never imagined that the sentence was so his, as not to be the Councels also, but that all their opinions uniformly inclining the same way, James pronounced the decree, or foreign. But then 2. the thing which there follows in those words, Then seemed it good to the Apostles and Elders, and the whole Church] was a subsequent determination of sending chosen men to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and to write by them, as follows expresly in that 22. verse. And so on which side the want either of wisdome or honesty hath appeared to lye, S. W. may now be better qualified to consider.
What he would now conclude in favour of S. Peters authority, from his speaking first, or breaking the ice in such a solemnly pronounced oration] will soon be answered by remembring, that St. Peter had been accused of preaching to Cornelius a Gentile, c. 11. 2. as Paul and Barnabas had of more than so, and for that reason they begin, and give account of their actions, the one justifying himselfe by the holy Ghosts descent on those Gentiles, before he baptized them, and the other by the miracles which God had enabled them to do among the Gentiles.
In this Sect. treating the business of S. Paul set down in Gal. 1.12.17. he distinguishes of dependence on S. Peter, and allowing Paul to have had no dependence on him as to the manner of conferring on him the power of Apostle, he will yet have this power (given him) to depend on S. Peter, or to be subject to him as the chiefe of the Apostles.] But to this I answer, 1. That he ought in any reason to have offered some proof for th…s, which he knows is most denyed by us, and 2. That unless the same Christ that gave him this power immediately, subjected it to S. Peter, and appeare to do that, as clearly as he gave him the power (which tis certain appears not) this cannot be said with any sobriety. 3. That the place, Gal. 1.17. belongs expresly to the power, after it was given, and yet then he depended not on him.
For this I appeal to S. Chrysostome, affirming of Paul distinctly,*Tom. 3. p. 723. l. 23. foreign, he had no want of Peter, nor of his voice (as I suppose he must have, if in respect of his power he depended on, and were subject to him) but was of equal dignity with him, adding in a parenthesis foreign, for I will say no more, which what it is an intimation of, I leave S. W. to conjecture.
The last thing that expects answer in this Sect. is the place out of Cyprian, Ep. 71. where concerning S. Pauls withstanding S. Peter, Gal. 2.11. he saith of Peter, that though the Lord chos… him first, and built his Church on him, yet he did not insolently challenge any thing to himselfe, or assume arrogantly so as to say he had the primacy, and so that he should rather be obeyed by newer and later Apostles, nor despised he Paul, because he had been a persecuter, but admitted the counsel of truth.] To which as being the only testimonie from antiquity, I have yet observed to be produced by S. W. it is needfull to give answer, that I never doubted of S. Peters primacy, in this sense, as this holy Father speaks of it (any more than of Christs building his Church on him) I gave him even now a testimonie from S. Ambrose, which expresly avouched it, I only deny, that this Primacy gave him any power either over S. Paul, or any other Apostle (or that his being a foundation on which the Church was built, gave him jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, who were foundations also) And that I have reason to deny this, he will remember both by the foreign, and foreign, so lately produced from Chrysostome and Theophylact, the equality betwixt Paul and him, and so of all other the Apostles, and also by the words of S. Ambrose, that S. Paul had a primacy among the Gentiles, as Peter among the Jewes. And then if he will review these very words of Cyprian, he will find them accord very well, which though they affirm him chosen primum first by Christ, yet adde, that non vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumsit ut diceret se primatum tenere, & obtemperari sibi à posteris oportere— leaving us to resolve, that if he had claimed any obedience from Paul by this primacy, he could not have justified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him. And to this agree those words set down in the*Decret: par: 1. Dist: 21. c. 2. Canon law as from Anacle…s's 2d Epist: ad Episc: Ital: where as on one side we find post Christum à Petro sacerdotalis coepit ordo, quia ipsi primo Pontificatus in Ecclesiâ Christi datus est, & potestatem ligandi primus accepit, primús{que} ad fidem populum adduxit; after Christ the sacerdotal order began from Peter, because the Pontificate in the Church was first given to him, and he first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first brought the people to the faith by vertue of his preaching, adding after, that the Apostles ipsum principem eorum esse voluerunt, would have him to be their Prince (where he read this I know not) so on the other side the words are as clear, Caeteri verò Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honorem & potestatem acceperunt; but the rest of the Apostles received honour and power in equall followship with him: Which being entred into their body of law, will, I hope, be of some force with S. W. what ever opinion others conceive of it.