The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 3 · Section 5 – Section 6
Sect. 5.
S. VV. his ill memory. The distinction of the Gentile and Jewish coetus, Acts 15.23. The Bishops at Rome a proof of it.
THe 10th Section begins with the view of two testimonies out of Ignatius. The very mention whereof accuses the close of his former Section of a fault, which even before all others is predominant in this Author, and railing it selfe is but his blind, to keep this from being descryed. For he had there said, that there was no testimonie at all to confirme my own [we know] and now being gotten into another Section his memory is fraile, and he hopes others will be so too, and then he blushes not to set downe two testimonies of that, of which he had so lately denyed any. But then next he hath objection to these; The testimonies do affirm no more but the founding of the Church of Antioch by Peter and Paul, and that might be by their promiscuous endeavours without distinction, much less exclusion of authority & jurisdiction.] I answer, tis true, this was possible; and if it had been true, had manifestly prejudged Peters singular jurisdiction, and clearly joyn'd Paul socially with him.
But there was another testimonie behind (and that, if taken notice of, had removed this, might be) from Acts 15.23. where the distinction of the Gentile Coetus at Antioch from the Iewish, is discernible, by the inscription of the Rescript of the Councel, foreign, to the brethren (i. e. the Christian Church) which are at Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (of which Antioch was the Metropolis) those of the Gentiles, and that separately, and in contradistinction to the Iews, as appears, v. 28, 29. where the things required of the Church in that decree, are all proper to the Gentiles: And beside more evidence, which there follows to the same matter, the words of*In Gal. 1.22. S. Hierome even now produced are most clear, Seorsim qui ex Iudaeis erant Ecclesiae habebantur, nec his qui erant è Gentibus miscebantur; the Churches which were of the Jewes were held apart or in several, nor were they mixed with those which were of the Gentiles.
The next Paragraph concerning Peters with-drawing from all communion with the Gentiles, and not only the Gentile diet, is prevented in the Reply, c. 4. §. 6. and the whole matter of Evodius and Ignatius being Bishops of Antioch at once farther cleared, and his elaborate mis-understandings forestald, Sect. 7. And so likewise the other part, wherein Rome was concerned, is reviewed, c. 9. (and to omit others, tis not possible all his scoffes can divert the force of the testimonie of Epiphanius, who makes both those Apostles Bishops, as well as Apostles of Rome, which they could not be at once withut this distinction of the coetus, the Iewish to be under one, and the Gentile under tother) and the testimonie of Prosper concerning the Ecclesia Gentium, the Church of the nations, as that is cleared to comprehend the Jewes and Gentiles both n. 10. And that concludes the calumnies and scoffes of the tenth Section.
Sect. 6.
The Popes seales for what produced. S. W. his misunderstandings. S. Peters jurisdiction in Rome proved to belong to the Jewes only. The Jewes solemn departure from Paul, Acts 28. yet some of them possibly of his coetus. The differences in story about the first Bishops of Rome. Christs favour to Iohn. Dignity of his place. Leaning on Christs breast. Abrahams bosome. No birth-right. foreign. No pretence for S. Peters power in Asia, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. Timothy and Titus were not under S. Peter.
HIS 11th Section contains new matter, but all in the former dresse, I need not say of what kind that is. And first the seales of the Popes, which I brought for a testimonie of the Church of Romes being founded by S. Paul as well as S. Peter, and is so far an irrefragable testimonie, he must cry out on, as a most irrational proof of S. Peters being Apostle of the Iewes only, not of the Gentiles.
The short is this; I have proved out of Scripture that Peter was by agreement to betake himselfe to the Iewes (where S. Paul and he met) and S. Paul to the Gentiles, and it was sufficiently manifested, that these were distinct assemblies, and in agreement with this (not as proofs of it) I found express mention of both of these in the planting the Church of Rome, and I affirmed the Popes seales to be an irrefragable instance of this last. And then all this must be first shuffled together, and some appearance of incoherence gained; and then the victory is gotten, and pursued most triumphantly. I again therefore aske, Is not the Popes seale an evidence that Paul as well as Peter had the planting the Church of Rome? and is not that agreeable to Peters preaching to the Iewes, and Pauls to the Gentiles, when they met in a city, where there were multitudes of both? and was not that the importance of the agreement, Gal. 2.9? And is not that an argument that Peter was not the Ʋniversal Pastor, but that the Gentiles were S. Pauls province, as the Iewes S. Peters? If it were, then is all my arguing regular, and concluding, for 'tis cleare as the day, that this was it. And tis not the dazling of his eyes from the distance of the object, but the resolvedness not to see ought to the prejudice of his cause, which made S. W. so short-sighted.
Agreeable is his next attempt against the word [onelyonly] when I said that the storie of Scripture, according to the brevity of the relations there made, onelyonly sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision. Where the [onelyonly] is set clearly in opposition to the Scriptures making more particular relations of S. Peters preaching to the Iewish coetus, at Rome, &c. as is evident by the consequents; that it saith of Paul, that he preacht at Rome, &c. And S. W. can by no means see that true importance of the word [only] but 1. it must note that Peter is onelyonly set down as Apostle of the circumcision exclusively to Iames and Iohn, which he knows I could not mean, without contradicting one branch of my former discourse, and that most impertinently, to my own disadvantage: And 2. that he was Apostle of the circumcision only, and great wagers are offered against the truth of my words in this sense, which though they belong quite to another matter, as hath been said, yet because his offers are so liberall, in case I shall shew the least syllable either in Scripture or any other testimonies expresly restraining S. Peters jurisdiction (at Rome he had said, and must mean) to the Iewes onelyonly, and exclusively to the Gentiles, he will yield the laurel, and quit the controversie; I shall, not for the laurels sake (that may belong to him upon other scores) but upon so tempting an hope, that I may be at an end of controversie, offer to his review the testimonie from S. Paul, and from Epiphanius, the one affirming the agreement made between those Apostles, that one should execute their Apostleship (for after that or the like manner must the Ellipsis be made up, foreign—) among the Gentiles, the other among the Iewes; and the other expresly affirming that in Rome Peter and Paul were the same persons, both Apostles and Bishops. From hence, and by force of S. Hieroms affirmation, that the Churches which consisted of the Iewes seorsim habebantur, were held by themselves apart, and were not mingled with those which were of the Gentiles, I shall adventure to infer the conclusion, that in Rome S. Peters jurisdiction was restrained to the Iewes onelyonly, and exclusively to the Gentiles. For how could there be two Bishops in one city (a thing quite contrary to all rule, and practice, assoon as the division betwixt the Iewes and the Gentiles was taken away) unlesse there were two such distinct coetus? If there were two such coetus, then they that were of one coetus under one Bishop, were not of the other coetus under the other Bishop, 1. Because the coetus were kept apart, and impermixti. And 2. because no Bishop was to meddle in another mans Province, and withal this was part of the foresaid agreement, foreign. And if it be pretended that is true in co-ordinate Episcopacies, but holds not betwixt a Bishop and his Primate, and S. Peter be pretended as such, then the former arguments return again, that shewed from Scripture and antiquity, that S. Paul was independent from St. Peter, and that S. Paul had the Primatum, primacy among the Gentiles, as S. Peter among the Iewes. And if against all this it be again urged that Peter preacht to Cornelius a Gentile, I answer, that that was not at Rome, but long before this agreement between the Apostles: and though it may be he did convert some other such, yet this is not argumentative for S. W. being nothing to the matter of jurisdiction, and withall but a whimpering [may be] in his language, and till I can foresee some farther Replie from S. W. this is all I shall offer to him at this season.
So when I said the Iewes solemnly departed from Paul, Act. 28.29. Whence I conceived it fit to apply his two years preaching there, to the Gentiles of that City, he is much offended at the word [solemnly] as not finding it in the Text, nor any expressions of absolutely relinquishing him; nor pertinacy nor contempt, but rather the contrary, much discourse or debate, a sign of hoveringness, &c. and finding a more solemn departure of his from them, Acts 13.51. Shaking off the dust of his feet against them, after which yet he oft preached to the Iewes, demanding farther what became of the Iewes which v. 28. were now converted by him?
But I answer, that as I cited not the word [solemnly] from that verse, as any part of the sacred Text, so I had authority enough to make use of the word, in that narration; For sure there were words, that signified a solemn departure, when before the dissolution of the meeting, Paul said this one word, Well said the Holy Ghost to our Fathers by the Prophet Isaiah, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall heare, and shall not understand— v. 26. For the heart of this people is waxen gross, and their eares are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, lest they should heare, and see, and understand, and be converted. Vers. 27. Be it known therefore unto you that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and that they will heare it, v. 28. Upon which words it is, that the mention of their departure follows, v. 29. This I thought was a competent ground, on which to found the solemnity of their departure, for this signified pertinacity, contempt and obduration of heart, and withall the Apostles resolution to deale with them as such, to betake himselfe to the Gentiles, so saith S. Chrysostome, foreign, when they agreed not among themselves they departed, v. 25. that is, they not believing, forsook him, that is his notion of their dispute, and the conclusion thereof, and foreign, those words of Scripture he applyed to them upon their unbelief: and again, that you may not wonder that they remained unbelievers, he cites that prophecy. All clear to mine, and contrary to S. W. his sense. And on Pauls part, foreign, he calls the chief Jewes, then having declared the matter to them, he goes to the Gentiles. What could be more express?
And what if he did not shake off the dust of his shoes against them? That was the ceremonie of his departing from them, and that when he meant to leave their city, c. 13. 51. but I there speake of the solemnity of their departing from him; and beside, he was brought prisoner to Rome, and could not depart at pleasure, and withall meant to stay there and preach to the Gentiles, and therefore this ceremonie was not now seasonable, and the others were sufficient to render it on both sides a solemn departure.
Lastly, for the Iewes that believed, v. 28. I answer, that if they continued in that Faith, which now they received, and were not scandalized and averted, if they did not fall off, upon the mention of his resolution to turn to the Gentiles (for many Iews which received the faith, would no longer associate with S. Paul, when he did so) yet I say upon any evidence produced for this, I shall make no doubt to acknowledg, that they, thongh Iewes, became a part of S. Pauls coetus, and so also can I as willingly yeeld to the force of any authentick testimonie, that there were some Gentiles in S. Peters coetus, such I suppose was Clemens a Roman: and if we believe*De contemptu mundi. Eucherius Lugdun: vetust â prosapiâ senatorum atque etiam ex stirpe Caesarum, and yet S. Peters Disciple, & Deacon, and Successor in the See. But this is no prejudice still to the distinct coetus of Iews & Gentiles, in this, as in other cities, the one under one Apostle and Governor, the other under another, any more then the admission of some Gentile proselytes among the Iews can be an argument against the impaling of the Church of the Iews, or their not associating with the Gentiles before Christs time.
Next he makes a pompous mention of a testimonie from Ignatius ad Tral: (which I used only to prove that Linus was Deacon to S: Paul, and Clemens to Peter) and because it doth say nothing to the proof of S. Peters being onelyonly over the Jewes, and Paul over the Gentiles, he hath great rejoycings over it: But I say again, that conclusion was proved by Scripture, which affirmes him by agreement to go to the Jewes, as the other to the Gentiles, and this from Ignatius is only a branch of accordance with it, that Linus, who (saith Ignatius) was Deacon to one, and Clemens to the other, succeeded them in the Government of their several coetus, that, as Epiphanius had said, Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome, so their two Deacons were Bishops after them. Whether this was any unseasonable advertisement, I desire others to pass their judgement, and shall not much consider, what S.W. thinks of it. Only he that likes not the phansie, should have directed his reader to some other solid way to reconcile those repugnancies of story, some making Linus, others Clemens first Bishop of Rome, after the Apostles, and others making Clemens but the third, which must in truth have some way of reconciliation, and for which the course is pointed out in the Tract of Schisme, and needed not have been so fastidiously rejected.
And this being the only crime committed against S. W. at this time, he is so reserved as not to offer any other means, but what himselfe justly calls evasions, to salve the difficulty. There was little kindness in this to his (even now) deare Countreymen.
The remainder of the Section concerns S. John, of whom I had said, 1. That in Christs life he had the favour of Christ, and dignity of place before S. Peter himselfe. 2. That being by agreement assigned the Jewes for his Province, as well as Peter had been, he had the converting and governing of all the converted Jewes of the Lydian Asia, and the placing Bishops over them; and this proved from Clemens Alex: Eusebius, Prosper, and the author of the martyrdome of Timothie. 3. That S. Paul had planted the Faith in the Gentile part of this Asia, and placed Timothy Bishop there: Now to all this he hath sundry exceptions. 1. That I bring nothing to prove this] But that is manifestly evinced by the testimonies there annexed, §. 14. OnelyOnly because they are not put in the same Section, in which the observation was proposed, he thinks that a very competent advantage, upon which to reply to §. 13. that I say 'tis manifest, and yet bring nothing to prove it. But this is the manner of this artificer, and therefore being now grown into some acquaintance with him, it must not be taken amiss from him.
2dly He dislikes my proof for the dignity of S. Johns place from the style of beloved Disciple, and leaning on his breast, as if, saith he, because Jacob loved Joseph more then all his other brethren, & therefore out of favour he might lean on his breast at supper, it must needs mean plainly, that young Joseph was the highest of his brethren in dignity, had due to him the birth-right & inheritance, &c.] I answer 1. That having mentioned two things of John, 1. Christs favour to him, 2. The dignity of place he had above others, it was only the former of these, which I assumed from his title of the beloved Disciple, and that infallibly infer'd it. 2. That for the dignity of place, as the foreign, or first room imports that, so that was as irrefragably concluded from his lying in his bosome, or leaning on his breast at supper, in the discubitus, for supposing Christ first, he that was in his bosome, must needs have, next Christ, the uppermost place, and accordingly it unavoidably follows, that Lazarus being represented parabolically in Abrahams bosome, is there described to be in the next place to the father of the faithfull, and it being certain, that upon supposition of degrees of glory in heaven, some one or more Saints are next to Abraham, I presume we may believe Christ, that such an one as is in that parable decyphered by Lazarus, is capable of that place, and all S. W. his scruples, which he adds further on this score, have not the least validity in them. But as for the birth-right and inheritance, &c. which I suppose must import some reall priviledge, such as Reubens birth-right was, Gen. 49.3. the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power, that is an addition of S. W. his own fertile fancy, and was never dreamt of, or pretended by me (or I think any man living) to belong to that beloved Disciple. I affirmed, in passing, that John had Christs favour, and the dignity of place before all others, and so visibly he had, and that was all I thought of, till by S. W. his jealousies this was converted into birth-right and inheritance.
3dly He will perswade himselfe, that the words of Chrysostome (which I had produced) foreign, a whole intire nation that of Asia was intrusted to him, destroys all that I had said of S. Johns Iewish province in the Lydian Asia, and then great rejoycing there is for this foreign, and no lesse then unpardonable blindnesse is become my portion. But what pity it was, that the blindness should be on S. W. his side, after all this? For to omit that he that is there spoken of, is S. Timothy (wch a seeing persō might have discerned from S. Paul, when in the line before he had read, by him S. Timothie constituted Bishop there) the answer is obvious, that foreign, a whole intire nation in that place of S. Chrysostome, is not set to denote all the several sorts of coetus in Asia, but onelyonly in opposition to the word foreign precedent, some one particular Church of one ci…y and territory, viz. that of Ephesus. There Paul saith he had left him Bishop, 1 Tim. 1.3. and so the author of the marty dome of Timothie, foreign, he was by S. Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus: And this being the chiefe Metropolis of all Asia, S. Chrysostome styles him Bishop of the whole nation. In Asia we know there were many Churches of which Ephesus was the prime, and therefore having said, foreign, 'Tis manifest Timothie was intrusted with a Church, he addes (by way of foreign) foreign, or rather a whole nation, foreign, that of Asia, which depended (all of it) on this chiefe Metropolitical See. By this interpretation 'tis evident, that what the other Church writers say of John (and hath in it as cleare truth) is soon reconciled with this, viz. that he being returned to Asia, foreign, administred the Churches there, viz. those of the Jewish converts, the portion to which by agreement with Saul, he was to betake himself, and foreign, undertook the care of the Metropolis of the Ephesians, which in this other respect had before this, been intrusted to Timothie, from whom therefore, as from their first Bishop, the succeeding reckon themselves, as appears in the Councel of Chalcedon, Act. 2. foreign, from S. Timothie till now there have been 27. Bishops ordained in Ephesus.
This being thus clear, was yet to be writhed by S. W. to another sense, that he might by that meanes have some opportunity to divert and wave the force of the instance, which consisted in this, that those Churches of Asia being wholly planted, and administred by other Apostles, S. Peter could not with any colour be pretended to be supreme Pastor of them. And this is equally true, whether it were S. Paul or Saint John, that had the managing of them. So little care hath S. W. to consider that, wherein the difficulty consists.
What follows Sect. 12. as if the mention of the early fame of the seven Churches of Asia, and of Christs letter to them, Rev. 2. were designed by me to contain a double proof of Peters not having the Pastorship over them, 1. Because Christ wrote an Epistle to those Churches, 2. Because they were early famous] is a signe that S. W. hath an excellent faculty in answering reasons of his own imagining, for 'tis certain I never used them as reasons, or proofs of any, much less of that conclusion. All that I designed was to mention these, as considerable parts of the Ʋniversal Church, desiring any Romanist to tell me, what can be said in any degree probably for S. Peters pastorship over them, for whom there is not the least pretence, that he should be said foreign, to feed, or govern, or so much as to have medled with the administration of these Churches of Asia.
That the Gentile part was by S. Pauls owne single power intrusted to Timothie, is there manifested, and here is confest by S. W. And for the administring it,p. 82. that S. Paul personally gave him full instructions, leaving no other appeal or place of application for other directions, save only to himself, when he shall come unto him, I thought it was conclusible from his words, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. the words are these: These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I make any stay, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the Church of God. Upon this citation, very tragicall tempests are raised, and to this hour I cannot discern what it was that conjured them up. That I infer'd this whole conclusion from the word [come] is one of his arts, to divert and amuse the Reader, I thought my grounds had been visible enough, being thus laid. The [foreign, these things] which S. Paul now wrote to him, were a whole Epistle of instructions, that it was no longer, was because he hoped to come to him shortly, when he might give him farther instructions, if there were need. In the mean, these told him, how he should behave himselfe in the Church, discharge his Episcopal office, and the end of writing it was, that he might know this: Thus much is explicitly conteined in those verses. I now demand (and that is all that I then did, as will be seen in the place §. 16.) whether S. Paul left any other appeal, or place for farther directions, save only to himselfe, when he should come to him? Or whether any other Apostle could, by any power given him by Christ, countermand, or interpose in them? If any could, let him be named, and the power specified, and proved, by vertue whereof he should thus act: But S. W. after all his acts of diversion, dares not, I am sure doth not, affirm this. And if it cannot be said (as no doubt it cannot) then where was St. Peters supreme pastorship over St. Paul or S. John, or (under the former) over S. Timothie in the Churches of Asia?
As for the mis-understanding of the question, which next he is willing to charge on me, certainly I shall not be found guilty of it, but he visibly of mis-understanding my processe. I speak not of any Apostolical commission over the whole world (of which he pretends me to speak, and will yeeld it to every Apostle) but of the peculiar power that Timothie had by S. Pauls commission in Asia, and Titus in Crete, under no other superior jurisdiction, but of Christ and S. Paul; and if that be granted, as S. W. disputes it not, I am sure it will prejudge S. Peters primacy over (and therefore for once S. VV. was concerned to be civil, and to set it only amongst) the rest of the Apostles.
The two remaining suggestions of this 12th Sect. 1. concerning S. Peters preaching to Jewes in England; 2. concerning Ecclesia Gentium in S. Prosper, were gleaned from the Catholique Gentleman, and satisfied in the Reply, c. 4. §. 7. n. 9, 10, And so much for that Section.