The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 3 · Section 7
SECT. 7.
Evidences against an Affirmation, by solving of testimonies. The reason of omitting to insist on Joh. 21.15, 16, 17. Mr. Harts confession. The Romanists enclosing the keyes to S. Peter. S. W. his confession. The contrary charges laid on me. S. VV. his inference from John 21.15. groundless. The infallible interpretation of the CHƲRCH. The particularizing Saint Peter. A Steward in every Church. The badge of no vertue without the power. The keyes were no visible badge to Peter. The power as distinctly promised the rest as Peter. Sitting on 12. Thrones. The fire sitting on each, Acts 2. S. Peters having the holy Ghost in a peculiar manner, in an higher degree. The power of Bishops an argument that the keyes not peculiar to S. Peter. A specimen of S. W. his reasoning. Foundation stones. foreign. The measuring of the wall, Apoc. 21. The Jasper stone.
THis 13 §. reflects on my view of the donation of the keys, & that being touched on by the Cath: Gent: received its due answer in the Reply, c. 4. §. 8, 9, 10 11. yet some few passages may expect here to be taken notice of, which were not there tendred, and so came not under consideration. As when first he spends a page on the importance of the word evidence, I answer, I take it in the familiar vulgar notion, for a testimonie to prove any question of fact, either in the affirmation, or the negative, and such was this, whether S. Peter were by Christ constituted Ʋniversal pastor: And the one possible way to testifie this (as any other) negative, is to take a view of the places, wherein be is by the affirmers pretended to be thus constituted, and to shew that those places have no such force in them. That they have such force, is incumbent on the Defendant to shew, at least to point at the particular word, or passage, which hath the supposed energie in it: And till that be done, he that undertakes the Negative, can only pitch upon those places and specialties, which he sees the learnedst affirmers most insist on, supposing it reasonable to conclude, that those are their most important evidences.
By this it appears how far I was from prevaricating against my promise of evidences, when I went about to prove my negative, by solving the Romanists testimonies for the affirmative, which I acknowledg with him to have been my method, and I suppose no man can by any laws of discourse oblige, or direct me to any other. 'Tis true (what he suggests) that he that undertakes to evidence, susteins the part of the Opponent. But that he may do, while he opposeth the affirmations (as well as negations) of other men, and that he must do by invalidating their testimonies, on which they found or defend their affirmations; and if hee can do so, why may not these be styled evidences on his side, i. e. testimonies, to evince the reasonableness of his negation? as when by any examination of a witness produced against me, I demonstrate the invalidity of his testimonies.
Secondly when upon my omitting to insist on the words of Joh. 21.15, 16, 17. I am charged with a palpable injuriousness, that in answering their testimonies out of Scripture, I omit the chiefest, the strongest, and most important place of all] This is just as Dr. Stapleton deales with Mr. Calvin, Princip: Doctrin: l. 6. c. 8. when among the Romanists arguments from Scripture, he had made no mention of Lu. 22.31. the Dr saith it was because he well knew, nullo cavillationis fuco tam manif…sta verba eludi potuisse, that this was the unavoidable convincing Text, just on the same score, on which this must now go for the most important place, because it was not mention'd.
But for this my reason was by me with perfect truth rendred, p. 93. from my full perswasion, that it had so very little appearance of strength in it, and had been so often answer'd, that it would not be deemed usefull to any that I should descend to it. That herein I have done the Romanist no injury, I have already given some account in the Reply, §. 8. n. 10, &c. and cannot farther seasonably attempt it, till I am told, what yet I am perfectly ignorant of, wherein the pretended strength lies of this most important place, and whether there be any farther reserve of force in it, which Mr. Hart in the conference with Dr Reynolds, fortified with all Dr. Stapletons armorie, did not take notice of. If there be not any such, yet invisible reserve, I must then remember the issue that it was brought to in that conference, as we have it under both the Disputers hands, Mr. Harts last Reply on this Text being in these words, p. 102. This which you have said might seem to be somewhat toward the loosing of them (the knots of Dr. Stapletons finding out) if the Scripture gave not clear evidence for the proof of his supremacy as wel elsewhere as here, namely Lu. 22.31. Out of which hold also being soon beaten, by evidence, that no more was there said to Peter, than Christ performs to every child of God, he concludes, p. 109. I cannot deny but that in some respect it may be truly said to all the children of God, if they fall as Peter did. Yet (I know not how) me thinks I cannot be perswaded but that it maketh somewhat for Peters supremacy.
Thirdly, when he accuseth me of manifest calumniating, in saying that the Romanist pretends the donation of the keyes as a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peter] To this I have answered already, Reply, Cap. 4. §. 9. And yet a little farther I shall now desire the Readers judgement of it, whether I have calumniated the Romanist, supposing S. W. to be that Romanist, whose pretensions in that manner are*P. 90, 91. set down gradatim, thus, 1. That something was said to Peter in particular, and by name, which was not said to any other Apostle particularly, and by name; That is his first step. 2. That since this saying was a promise, a promise of something was made to S. Peter in particular; That is his second step. 3. And by way of conclusion from hence, with a [wherefore] that seeing this thing promised was the giving of the keyes of heaven, it follows that the promise of giving the keyes of heaven was made to S. Peter in particular. In this process it is clear, 1. That the promise of the keyes is by S. W. affirmed to be made in particular and by name to S. Peter, and 2. that saying or making a promise in particular and by name, is in his sense so to make it to one particular, viz. to Peter, as not to any other Apostle, and what is that but to affirm it a peculiarity, and inclosure of S. Peters? If here he sly back to his refuge of [particularly and by name] and say that he affirms no more, but that this promise was not made to the other Apostles in particular and by name, then 1. he gain'd nothing at all to S. Peter by that process; for as long as that which was given to S. Peter by name, were without naming every of them particularly, given to them all, so that each of them had it, then this will never be able to found S. Peters supremacy over them.
But then 2ly. before he can thus escape, he will find himselfe intangled again; for in the words presently following, he thinks it most consonant to reason, and worthy our Saviour to perform his promise according to the tenor and manner in which he promised, and that by a performance in particular (which therefore he cals his best and surest testimonie, Joh. 21.) and I who produce a performance to them all in generall, am rebuked for omitting that performance in particular, and in stead of it, producing onelyonly a performance to them all in generall. Here I demand, am I rebuked for omitting something, or not? if for omitting something, then that performance in particular to Peter was something, which was not comprehended in that performance to them all in generall (for if it were there comprehended, then I that am acknowledged to have produced that, cannot be said to have omitted this) and if it were so, then it was peculiar to him, and so his inclosure: and if the performance were so, then the promise was so too, by the foregoing confession of S. W. which will have the performance made according to the tenor of the promise. And so here is as much affirmed by S. W. (and by and by we shall have it more expresly repeated again) as that amounts to, which I suppose to be asserted by the Romanist, and that I hope will secure me from being like S. W. in calumniating him, with whom I came to dispute.
To conclude, was there, or was there not any thing here promised Peter, which was not promised the rest? If there was, then 1. that was St Peters inclosure, and 2. that is contained in the promise of the keyes, for that and the consequents thereof, power of binding and loosing, is all that is there promised him. And then 'tis vaine to say you are calumniated, because you allow the power of binding to all the Apostles, for if you do, as indeed you do, and must, you must either shew somewhat else to be promised in those words, which mention nothing else, or else you must be forced to confesse that either there was nothing promised the rest of the Apostles, or that you will still affirme something to have been promised him, which was not promised him.
In this place it is not amisse to note, that at the beginning of this his 13th Sect. I am said to affirm that no power of the keys was given especially to St. Peter, and yet the Cath: Gent. (S. W. his very good friend, who might have saved him the labour of this, as he calls it, his larger confute) saith, that I confesse the keyes were especially promised to Peter. The truth is, I never said one or other, and if I had said one, I must needs not have said the other, and yet by these two Romanists, or (as seems to me most probable) two appearances of the same Romanist, I am said to say both. What trust shall be given to such disputers? I say the power was given in common and equally to all the Apostles, and once mentition the making the promise to him peculiarly, but that onelyonly as a color, that the Romanist makes some use of, and reply to it, that in the repetition it is given to all, without any peculiarity of restriction, and that the applying, or addressing the words particularly to Peter, had a speciall energie in them, noting that the oeconomie in Christs houshold belongs to single persons, the Bishop in each city, and not onelyonly to the Colledge or Consistory. But still nothing of all this is to the giving the keyes either specially or not specially to S. Petrr.
What follows from Joh. 21.15, 16. where, saith he, 'tis expresly recommended and incharged on S. Peter particularly and by name, once, twice, and thrice, with as many repetitions of his name particularizing him over and over, Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my sheep, and asking him, Amas me plus his?] is a strange way of arguing, and yet gives us a view of the utmost that S. W. can attempt in this cause of S. Peters universal Pastorship: For when indeed that is the great foundation, on which the whole dispute of our schisme depends, and when as S. W. assures us, the place of Joh. 21.15, 16. is their chiefest, & strongest, and most important place of all, and as it is evident by his arguing, the other place of [I will give thee the keyes, Mat. 16.19.] must receive all its force from the comparing it with this and the consonancy betwixt the promise, and this (as hee will phansie it) performance. Yet after all this, all that he can pretend to from hence, is but a recommending and incharging of him, Feed my sheep— together with a question, whether he love him more than the rest of the Apostles? which what is it but an exhortation to perform that duty, to which he was before commissionated, Joh. 20.21. and with him all the rest of the Apostles equally. For as to the other circumstances of expresness, particularizing him by name, frequent repeating of it, asking him whether he love him more then these] one or all of them, they can never work a change in the matter. Christ praying the same prayer thrice, did not make it cease to be a prayer, and commence a precept; No more will an inculcated, express, particularized (be it never so vehement an) exhortation, introduced with a question, to quicken, and impress it, be converted by these accumulations into a commission for supremacy, especially when the causes, which visibly suggested to our Saviour this manner of questioning, and pressing his exhortation, were more justly matter of humiliation, than of exaltation to S. Peter (and so were received, and interpreted by him, Peter was grieved because Christ said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? ver. 17. and no doubt deemed it a reproach of his thrice denying his Master) a remembring him of the foulness of his fall, but not the instating any principality or dignity upon him. But of this I have also spoken distinctly, Reply, c. 4. §. 8.
Besides this force of the words, S. W. is willing to call in the interpretation of the Catholicke Church according to her never erring rule of faith, and that gives him and his friends an infallible certainty that these and (he only saith it) some other testimonies from Scripture expresse a primary in S. Peter] But here he neither produces any one interpretation of either Fathers, or Councels, or any single writer, thereby to signifie what he meanes by the Catholike Church, or what is the way of interpretation, that must induce this. It is therefore left to his Reader to conjecture his meaning, viz. that the present Roman Church is the Catholike, that the interpretations of this are the never erring rule of Faith, that this hath interpreted this, and some other Texts to signifie a Primacy not onelyonly of order but of power, an universality of jurisdiction, to belong to Saint Peter, over all the Apostles, and that this gives him, and all that are of his perswasion in all things (particularly in the beliefe of the Infallibility of the Roman Church) an infallible certainty of the truth of it. And this sure would aequally have done it, if our Saviour had never asked St. Peter three times, Lovest thou me more then these— And so all that I can conclude from hence is but this, that S. Peters universall pastorship is as perfect a truth, as the Infallibility of the Roman Church, but withall that it is to as little purpose to dispute of that, or any subject, till the other be either resolved, or set aside, as it is to inquire, whether he say true that cannot lye. And therefore I shall thus take my leave of my inchanted adversarie.
What follows p. 93. by way of new attempt, & deduction from my words, when I mention the applying the words particularly to S. Peter] is a very subtile reasoning. By the applying the promise of the keyes particularly to Peter, he will have it follow, 1. That our Saviour told Peter in the singular, and in a singular manner that he should be Steward of his house; and then seeing all particularizing is a kind of exception from an universality, and that universality is the other Apostles, it must follow (saith he) that St. Peter was particularized out of that community for the office of Steward in Christs house. And if he were so, say I, then here the particularity and inclosure of the keyes to St. Peter, is affirmed by S. W. (which was a while ago such a slander of my pen against their Church) for sure so 'twas, if Peter by this Donation was particularized out of the Community, for the office of the Steward (of which he after tells us there was none but he) in Christs house.
But letting that passe, I shall attend to his reasoning, and though very fine, without much ado, this Fabricke will soon be demolished. The speech (I yeeld) is addrest to Peter in the singular, but that is a token onelyonly, that Peter, as a single person, should have power, but not either that no others should have it too (or that when they had it, not single persons, but only Communities should be invested with it) or that the manner, in which Peter should have it, should be singular to him, and so, as it was not to each of them. The particularity gives him particularly the power, but excludes not others from the same power, and the same degree of power, to whom it was at any other time promised, or given, and so it was to all and every of the Apostles, Mat. 18. John 20. And though the office of Steward be a particular office, yet in every particular house there may be one such Steward, and every whether Nationall, or Provinciall, or Diocesan Church, is such an house, and not onelyonly the one Catholike Church that comprehends them. If it were otherwise, that power which Christ had in one person by Commission from his Father, he could never have delegated to the plurall Disciples, as 'tis visible he did, John 20. or else that must not be the Stewards office, as it is visible also that it is, by comparing Mat. 18. with Mat. 16. where the binding and loosing is an effect of the keyes, and those the Stewards ensign of office: And by 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. where the Apostolicall office is so described, which consequently instates every one in this Stewards office, as wel as the Text, Mat. 16. doth S. Peter.
What is next said of the keyes, the badge of the function, that they are not read of to be given to any but S. Peter] is of the same complexion with the former Combatants. 'Tis sure the badge and the power go together, and if they did not, 'tis the power and the Commission for that, which alone is considerable in this matter, and that is apparently and expresly given to all the Apostles, Mat. 18. and Iohn 20. and for any more it matters little.
The Commission being cleared, either supposes the implicite donation of the badge, or else stands in no need of it. But then 2. it is yet farther evident that there were no material keyes given to S. Peter himselfe, and those onelyonly can be called a badge (spiritual, invisible keyes are not capable of being such) and Christs commission and the power accompanying it, are the spiritual keyes, which he that hath, may open and shut the kingdome of heaven, and those every Apostle had as well as S. Peter.
His third argument from the Apostles, being part of Christs house, whence he infers S. Peter Steward over them, is answered most briefly by retortion, that if there be any force in it, then it will equally hold thus. St. Peter was a part of Christs house, and therefore Paul that was a Steward in Christs house, and is expressely so called, 1. Cor. 4.1, 2. was Steward over St. Peter.
What follows in this matter introduced by Fourthly and lastly, is onelyonly his expression of dislike to an argument of mine concerning Presbyterie, and so is not pertinent to the question before us, and besides it hath not, I suppose, any shew of the least difficulty in it.
As for the next passage on the same foundation, pag. 96. wherein I am said to affirm most shamelesly, and most expresly against Scripture alledged by my selfe, that this power was as distinctly promised, Mat. 18.18. to each single Apostle as to S. Peter.] I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether it be calumnie or no, by this syllogisme, That which was promised to all the Apostles, as to twelve single persons, each singly to have and exercise it, and not all together in commune, was as distinctly promised to each single Apostle, as it was promised to S. Peter (I speak not now of its being promised particularly by name, nor were any such words found in this part of my former treatise, that is willingly allowed to S. Peter, and the full importance of it before considered) but the power of binding and loosing was Mat. 18 promised to all the Apostles, as to twelve single persons, each singly to have, and exercise it, and not altogether in common, Ergo. The major is cleared by this, because the distinctness and particularity of the promise to S. Peter divolved no more on him, but this, that he should singly have and exercise that power, and not onelyonly in common, or in consistory with other Apostles. If it be said that it divolved any more, I desire it may be said what it was, and how it appeares to be by these words divolved on him, and whatsoever it be feigned to be, if it be lesse than a supremacy over all the Apostles, it will be nothing to the purpose; and that 'tis sure it was not, because the supremacy is not competible to two, whether persons, or communities, and yet this power promised S. Peter, is acknowledged by S. W. to be also made to all the Apostles in common and in generall, Mat. 18.18. though not distinctly to each of them. The minor is in part confest by S. W. so farre as that this power was promised to all the Apostles, and for the other parts, 'tis evidently proved in that treatise out of St. Cyprian, Theophylact, and others, and is the interest of S. W. as well as of us, to maintain against the Presbyterians, who alone can gain by the questioning of it.
That about the meaning of the twelve thrones was considered in the Reply, Cap. 4. Sect. 10. and there the sense which S. W. never heard of, vouched from Saint Augustine, to whom I may also adde Hilarius Pictaviensis, and the Author imperfecti Operis. As for the words, that either judging should signifie ruling, or presiding, as Governors preside, or that foreign should signifie the Episcopall chaire, 'twill be no newes to any man, that hath observed the use of words, either the most critically, or the most slightly, whatsoever S. W. would make shew of believing to the contrary.
In the next place the dumb negative (as he calls it) is by him mutilated, or else it would speak articulately enough, to all that I cal'd it out to testifie. It is in the descent of the Spirit, Acts 2. the fire's being divided, and sitting on every one of them. This fire represented the holy Ghost, that holy Ghost sealed that Commission to those on whom it fell, which Christ had promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. and to all the Apostles, Mat. 18. Now this fire was divided, and foreign, on each, and every one of them, Acts 2.3. And this I suppose an argument of some validity, that the promise being thus sealed distinctly to every one of them, was meant (in the making of it) distinctly to every one of them. And when I adde that there was no peculiar marke allowed St. Peter, though that be a negative argument, and therefore I meant not from that alone to conclude any thing, yet I hope by being annext to the affirmative probation precedent, it will not be a gagge to make that dumbe and negative also.
But in this paragraph here is offered a very doubty proofe to evidence on St. Peters behalfe (what I know not, for that is not exprest, but left doubtfully betwixt his being head of the Apostles, and his having some peculiar marke allowed him in the descent of the holy Ghost, yet one I suppose designed to inferre and conclude the other.) 1. Saith he, the Doctor was not there to see, and there is no historie that expresses the contrary. It seemes a Negative in S. W. his mouth is perfectly vocall, though it be but dumb in another mans. 2. Saith he, If we may judge by exterior actions, and may believe that out of the abundance of the heart the tongue speakes, then perhaps the Doctor may receive some satisfaction in this point also that St. Peter had in a more peculiar manner the holy Ghost, for it was hee that first burst out into that heavenly Sermon which converted three thousand. Here was one honest word the [perhaps] But even this will faile, for granting the two postulata, that wee may judge (probably at least) by exterior actions, and that our Saviour said perfect truth, when he said, Out of the abundance of the heart— Yet the Doctor may not be satisfied from thence, or from St. Peters first bursting out, making the first, though so powerfull Sermon, that he had received the holy Ghost in a more peculiar manner, or was designed head of the Apostles. I shall answer it no farther than by repeating it, hoping that my silence will not again have such efficacy in it (if it have, dumbe Negatives may hereafter deserve some consideration) as to render this also a strongest and most important place for the Romanists pretensions.
What is next represented (according to S. W. his meaning) as my fourth argument, viz. That they were all filled with the holy Ghost, is sure no distinct argument of mine, but only a part of that Text before cited, where the fire sate on every of them, and this is a consequent of that, they were all filled with the holy Ghost. And that this thus set, was an argument of some validity, hath already appeared. As for the possibility, that they which were all full of the holy Ghost, might yet have it unequally, I am not concerned to doubt, if by [unequally] be meant the inequality of divine indowments. But though of these there is no certaine ground of affirming, which of all the Apostles had the highest degree, Saint John excelling in some graces, Saint Peter in others, and Saint Paul that came after, having as rich a proportion as either, for ought wee can discerne, and labouring more abundantly than they all, yet not he, but this grace of Gods spirit in him: Yet our question being onelyonly of power or Commission to authority, and dignity in the Church, and every one having that sealed to him by the Holy Ghosts descent upon every one, there is no remaining difficulty in this matter.
The testimonies which I*Tr: of Schism. p. 89. brought out of the antients to prove that there was no more promised to S. Peter, Mat. 16. than was promised, Mat. 18. and actually given, John 20. to all and every of the Apostles, p. 98.are lookt on by by S. VV. as pretendings, that the Romanists build not the Church upon Bishops in the plurall, nor allow any authority to them, but to the Pope onelyonly, and this made a piece either of pitifull ignorance, or malicious calumnie. But tis apparent they did not inject the least suspicion of that. What they were designed to inferre, was cleare by the matter of the testimonies, that though the words, Mat. 16. were spoken particularly to Peter, yet the intire power there spoken of was promised and given to all the Apostles, that from that donation it is, that all Episcopall power, which is in the Church, flowes, that in S. Peters receiving the Keyes, all Bishops received them, which is an evidence that either he received more than was comprehended in the keyes (which he cannot do by those words) or else he received no more than all other Bishops receive from the rest of the Apostles. And then how can his supremacy be founded in these words?
In this paragraph hee hath given us a very rare specimen of his reasoning, for not contenting himselfe to have sayd, that the testimonies of Bishops in the plurall, touch not the Romanists, there being no word in them excluding the Pope, Hee addes, Nay rather they make for them: How fair they bid to excluding the Pope, supposing that title to signifie not a Bishop onelyonly, but a supreme universal Pastor, hath been shewed already. Let us now observe how hee proves this [Nay rather they make for us] for that will bee a matter of some moment, if performed successefully. His way of inferring this his advantage is, For the Churches being founded in Apostles, and Bishops, prejudices not S. Peter to be the chiefest; and if so, then the Church is built most chiefely and especially upon Saint Peter, which is all we Catholikes say.] Where not to dispute what is meant by S. Peter being the chiefest, whether no more than appeares to be meant by the foreign, which hee knows we willingly grant him, without imagining any supremacy of Authority over the rest of the Apostles, instated in him; All that I desire to observe, is the manner of his arguing, thus, If it prejudices not S. Peter to bee the chiefest, then the Church is built most chiefely upon him: from those testimonies not prejudicing, presently assuming that it is true, as if saying nothing to hurt it (by not saying any thing to it) were a clear evidence on its side, and then the first verse of St Matthew inferres it also, for I acknowledg that prejudices it not, and then S. W. may set up for immortall disputer, having as many reserves of such arguments still behind, as there are periods in the Scriptures, or Fathers which speak of other matters, for of each of them 'tis acknowledged, that they prejudice not St. Peters being the chiefest. Sure S. W. when he was so displeased with the dumb negative, foresaw not hee should need to call in such Auxiliaries as these.
My answer to the Text of Tu es Petrus, is after his constant manner deformed by him, yet cannot misse to have this discernible efficacy in it, that there being no more meant by it, then that Peter was a foundation stone, and all the Apostles being such as well as hee, this cannot constitute him in any superiority over them, CHRIST onelyonly being the foreign, chiefe corner stone, and no other place in the Foundation giving any foreign of power to one Foundation-stone above another. This might bee soone manifested, if it were needfull, by the known position of Foundation-stones, one by, not on the top of another: And if St. Peter were supposed to bee the first, (as page 103. hee saith the Doctor will not deny) and so next the chiefe corner stone, and by that Superior to all the rest, then it must likewise follow, that that stone which was placed next to the stone that represented Saint Peter, or in the next place of honour, next CHRIST on the other hand, must be also Superiour to all the rest, and the same rules of subordination hold on, through all the rest, which I suppose will not bee S. W. his interest to affirm, and then I can foresee nothing that will incline him to that way.
Somewhat hath been added on this head in the Reply, Sect. 11. It remaines onelyonly that I gather up some special objections of his against what I have said in the Tract of Schisme of this matter, which were not tendred by the Cath: Gent:
And first, saith hee, the argument is onelyonly negative, that no distinction is put (betwixt the Foundation-stones in Scripture) therefore there was none. I answer, the argument is this, Simon is by Christ called foreign, a foundation-stone in the building of the Church, and the same title is, in another word, given every of the Apostles, when they are called foreign twelve foundations, from whence my conclusion (and not my proofe) is negative: Therefore the words Tu es Petrus, neither give, nor affirme more of him, than is given and affirmed of every of the other Apostles.
Next, saith he, it is a most pitiful piece of reason to perswade the Reader from onelyonly a plurality, and naming twelve Apostles, that all were equall. But this was not my reasoning, but that the rest of the Apostles were foundation stones as well as Simon, and therefore that that title of Tu es Petrus was no proof of inequality.
Thirdly, The Doctor, saith he, hath quite overthrowne his owne cause, since granting a foundation-stone and foreign being the same, and onelyonly St. Peter having the name of foreign, it followes on the Doctors grounds that hee onelyonly, and hee more particularly should be a foundation-stone. This would be a strange syllogisme, if it were put into forme; but I shall not trouble my selfe with that, onelyonly when it is as certaine that foreign and foreign is the same, sure they that are every one of them foreign, shall be, as far as this argument can conclude, as much and as particularly foundation-stones, as he that was called foreign; so far from being inferr'd is his [onelyonly St. Peter] or St. Peter more particularly.] 'Tis as if I should say, man and En…sh being the same, and onelyonly the sonne of Seth having the name of En…sh, it follows on these grounds, that hee onelyonly, and in good reason that he more particularly should be a man. I suppose to this proposall of objection against S. W. his being a man, he would find out some answer or other to defend himselfe, perhaps this, that Isch and Enosh are the same, and S. W. is an Isch, and therefore as well and as particularly a man, as the sonne of Seth can be deemed to be; and then hee hath no further need to be shewed the way to make answer to this argument.
But then fourthly, he must have it noted, that the Doctor will have all the Apostles called Peter.] And now I have helpt him to another quarrell with the Doctor as just as that, viz. that the Doctor will have every man call'd Enosh: But I answer, I shall not importune him that all the Apostles may be called Peter (and therefore the eleven…h dish in the bill of fare, was but a brick-bat put in paste, and meant onelyonly to fill up room at the table) foreign & foreign are all one, and that will serve my turne as well, and therefore I content my selfe with the Scripture style, that the Apostles were twelve foreign, and not twelve Peters.
The confirmation of the observations concerning Tu es Petrus, from the measuring of the wall in the Apocalypse, is made matter of much game to S. W. But a little seriousnesse (in such matters very decent) would have taught him, that the analogie of some obscure things in vision with so…e most plaine, may render some parts of visions intelligible, and then what more obvious than this, that the wall being built upon the foundation, and so commensurate with it, and the foundation being distinctly made up of twelve stones, and the names of the twelve Apostles expresly interpreting each of them to be the so many Apostles, and the wall also being divided into twelve equall parts, the severall portions whether of Province, of which the Church is made up, or else of power with which the Apostles were invested, should be thought to be meant by them, and so this representative mensuration be exactly significative of that, which other plain Scriptures had given grounds of believing, and Tu es Petrus had offered nothing to the contrary, viz. the aequality of the power given by Christ to all the Apostles. As for S. W. his subtle fetch from the quality and lustre of the first of the twelve stones in that vision, the Jasper, I can allow him to make his advantage of it, to that which it is most proper to signifie the lustre of zeale and other gifts, and if he can find any meanes to assure himselfe, 1. That St. Peter was signified by that Jasper stone, 2. That the lustre of that exceeded the lustre of every of the other stones, I shall very willingly grant him his conclusion, knowing that as the greatest Potentates are not alwayes the most zealous persons in their Kingdomes, so Dominion is not founded in such graces, but only in the Constitutions and Commissions of Christ, which mediately or immediately bestowes all supremacies on all that are duely possessed of them.
And so much for this large 13th Section (which I have attended on precisely, and foreign, as being most important to our businesse in hand, the case of our Schisme fundamentally depending on the supremacy of S. Peter) and consequently of his first part.