A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy PART I. In Answer to a Treatise intituled St. Peter's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers And to a Sermon of S. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager on St. Peter and St. Paul's Day by Thomas Godden D. D. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Discourse of the Pope's Supremacy H. Maurice Rmo. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Junii 7. 1688. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the 〈◊〉 and Crown in St. Paul 's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE OF THE Pope's Supremacy THOUGH the Pope's universal Pastorship is a Claim so groundless and the Vanity of it hath been so exposed not only by Protestants but by some learned Men of the Church of Rome that he had need have a Roman Confidence who shall now think to impose upon us by a pretence so miserably baffled yet because it is by many still insisted upon with as much Assurance as if nothing had been said in Confutation of it it may not be amiss to enquire whether any thing new hath been produc'd in defence of this good old Cause of the Church of Rome by her late Advocates * Nubes Testium St. Peter 's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers A Sermon of St. Peter preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager by Thomas Godden D. D. The Pope's Supremacy asserted from the Considerations of some Protestants and the Practice of the Primitive Church in a Dialogue between a Church-Divine and a Seeker in Vidication of Nubes Testium The first of those Discourses quoted in the Margin hath already received an Answer and I think it needless to repeat what hath been said by the learned Author of it The other three I intend to examine the two former of them joyntly because there is no Argument offer'd in the Sermon that we do not also meet with in the Treaties of St. Peter's Supremacy the third which is a Reply to the Answer to the Nubes Testium shall be consider'd distinctly and apart The Discourse of St. Peter's Supremacy was written as the Author informs us in Confutation of some Advertisement to the Reader Papers he received from a Protestant Divine having never seen those Papers and having great reason upon many accounts to suspect that what he quotes from them is not fairly represented I shall take no notice of them but whatsoever I find in his Book that is pertinent to the main Question and hath but the shew of Argument shall be duly consider'd What he hath offer'd is he tells us as well perform'd as his Abilities would permit and his Abilities we may presume were none of the meanest after he had given the Fathers a due Discussion and applied himself to the modern Authors of both sides that he himself had no low opinion of his Performance we may reasonably conclude in that he thought it worthy the Approbation and Protection of her Majesty the Queen Regent I therefore expected great matters beyond what I had formerly met with but no sooner had I read a few pages but my Expectation flagg'd and upon the Perusal of the whole Book I scarce ever found my self more disappointed The first Part is wholly spent upon other Points excepting part of chap. 1. concerning St. Peter's Successor it being as he himself tells us but Prefatory and introductive to the main Design he aim'd at which Part. 2. chap. 1. in the second Part he applies himself to and his whole Discourse in the second and third Parts may be reduc'd to these two general Heads I. St. Peter's Supreme Authority over the Universal Church II. That the Bishop of Rome succeeded him in this Supremacy CHAP. I. I. THAT St. Peter was invested with supream Authority over the Universal Church This is the Supremacy he means a Primacy of Order is not denied by Protestants but that will not satisfy the Pope and 〈◊〉 Friends that which they contend for is a Supremaâ—◠〈◊〉 Power over all Christians not excepting the 〈◊〉 themselves Now that St. Peter had this Supremacâ— he attempts to prove by several Texts of Holy Scripture and by the Testimonies of several Fathers which he quotes as he goes along to confirm the Sense he gives of those Scriptures The Scriptures he produces he was put to no pains to search for they being no other than those common Texts which have I think been pressed upon the same Service by every Romanist that hath ever written upon this Subject viz. Matth. 16. v. 17 18 19. John. 21. 16. In the first he supposes that Christ promised this Supremacy in the second that he conferr'd it SECT I. I begin with the first whence he argues as his Predecessors in this Controversy have ever done from the double Promise Christ made to St. Peter The one in these Words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the other in these And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. But before he proceeds to discourse of these there are two things he supposes as the reason and Foundation of this special Honour conferr'd on St. Peter †Part 2. c. 1 2 3. First That at the time when he made this Confession he alone knew the Divinity of Christ the rest of the Apostles being as yet ignorant of this great Mystery Secondly That he knew this by a special Revelation from God the Father I shall therefore first examine his Foundation because if that fail the Supremacy built thereon will of it self fall to the Ground It hath not without Reason been questioned by some whether by the Son of the living God St. Peter meant any more than he did by the Christ not only because the former Expression is in other Texts of Scripture expounded by the latter but because St. Mark speaking of this very Confession of St. Peter makes it no more than this Thou art the Christ ‖ Mark 8. 29. And St. Luke that he was the Christ of God * Luke 9. 20. Yea the Discussor himself supposes that Peter confessed no more than what Christ afterward strictly commanded his Disciples to conceal as too sublime to be divulged †Pag. 79. And that we find ver 20. was no more than this That he was Jesus the Christ And if St. Peter's Confession amounted to no more it cannot then be denied but that St. Andrew long before him confessed as much when he said We have found the Messiah ‖ John 1. 49. And that Nathanael's Confession was no way inferiour when he said Thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel * John 1. 49. But be it granted that St. Peter by the Son of the living God meant that he was the Son of God by Nature as the Fathers generally expound it yet that the other Apostles were not at this time ignorant of this
says he not hearken to them who deny that the Church of God can remit all Sins Then follow the words quoted by the Discussor Therefore those wretched Persons while in Peter that is the Church they do not understand the Rock that is Christ and will not believe that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Church they themselves have lost them †Nec eos audiamus qui negant Ecclesiam Dei omnia peccata posse dimittere Itaque miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt et nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claves regni Coelorum ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt De Agone Christiano c. 31. They themselves have lost the Keys because they will not believe that they were given to the Church And why will they not believe this because in the Church they do not understand Christ in whom the Church is founded who hath committed the Keys to her The next Passage is quoted out of St. Austin contra 5 Haeres I suppose he means his Oration de quinque Haeresibus in which there is no such Passage and in case it were it would be altogether as impertinent as the former But that which comes next he is confident must gag us and make us as silenced Ministers as if the Wolves had first seen us viz. that St. Austin makes the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to be the Rock contra partem donati Numerate Episcopos ab ipsa sede beati Petri ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae * Pag. 107. It is well for them that this must silence us they will then for the future be no more troubled with disputing which is a Work they are very awkard at But if this will silence us how comes it to pass that we were not silenced long since this place having been often produced against us The truth is so far is it from stopping our Mouths that it furnishes us with a new Argument against Peter's Supremacy which when the Discussor shall consider he may perhaps be silenced himself or sneak away as it is said those Wolves do that are seen first by Men. Though if I should deny it the Discussor will not be able to prove that by the Rock is here meant the Succession of the Bishops of Rome yet as I have been all along liberal in my Concessions so should I for Argument sake grant him this also it will make nothing to the Advantage of his Cause For 1. If it be granted yet before the Discussor can hence infer the Bishop of Rome's or Peter's Supremacy he must prove that the Foundation of the Building is ever the supreme Lord of it 2. If it be granted yet the Succession of the Roman Bishops cannot by Virtue of these Words be the sole Rock or any more the Rock than the Succession of Bishops in any other Apostolical Church This will appear by restoring to the Text one little Word vel which the Discussor was so prudent as to leave out St. Austin's Words are these Numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede beati Petri et in ordine illo Petrum quis cui successit videte Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae From which Words these things are plain 1. That St. Austin here uses the very same Argument against the Donatists that Irenaeus Tertullian and several other Fathers had used before against the Hereticks of their times to prove the Catholick Doctrine viz. The Succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Churches †Iren. l. 3. c. 3. l. 4. c. 63. Tertul. de Praescript c. 32. Cyprian Ep. ad Lapsos Edit Pamel 27. 2. That he proposes the Church of Rome only as a single Instance instead of all those Apostolical Churches that might have been mentioned As Irenaeus before had done who because it would have been tedious to enumerate the Successions of all Churches brings for an example that of Rome which was the greatest and most famous * Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae c. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Is Casaub Exercit 15. p. 310. And therefore he says not simply Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa sede beati Petri c. But numerate Sacerdotes VEL ab ipsa sede c. Which is in effect to say with Irenaeus Because it would be too long to reckon the Successions of Bishops in all those Churches in which the Catholick Doctrine hath been preserved ever since the Apostles consult at least the Succession of the Church of Rome from the first Founder of it St. Peter And therefore 3. And consequently if it be the Succession of the Bishops of Rome that he here makes the Rock he implicitely affirms the same of any other Apostolical Church in which there had been a continued Succession of Catholick Bishops which is further confirmed in that he elsewhere arguing against the same Donatists joyns the Church of Jerusalem together with that of Rome and makes the Chair of the former no way inferior in Authority to the latter If says he to Petilian all the Bishops through the World were such as thou most falsely accusest them to be yet what hath the Chair of the Church of ROME done in which Peter sate and in which at this day Anastasius sits or of the Church of JERVSALEM in which James sat and in which at this day John sits with which we are joyned in Catholick Vnity and from which you by a cursed Fury have separated your selves †Veruntamen si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissime criminaris Cathedra tibi quid secit Ecclesia Romanae in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae in qua Jacobus sedit in qua hodie Johannes sedet quibus nos in Catholica Unitate connectimur a quibus vos nefario furore separastis Contra Lit. Petiliani l. 2. c. 51. And therefore 4. Nothing can hence be inferred for the Supremacy of Peter more than for the Supremacy of James or any other Apostle If any shall ask why St. Austin in case he did not ascribe some preeminence to the Church of Rome should mention that rather than the Church of Antioch of Jerusalem Or why he did not chuse to instance in the Church of Carthage rather than in any other The Answer is obvious To the first because the Church of Rome was at that time the most famous and of greatest esteem of any Church in the World To the second because the Donatists objected against the Church of Carthage and other African Churches that the Succession of Bishops had been in them interrupted by Traditors whereas they could not pretend this against the Church of Rome ‖ Is Casaub Exercit. 16. n. 149. P. 540. SECT II. All that the Discussor contends for
we have reason to expect something to the purpose His Design here is to shew S. Peter's Preeminence as he is the Foundation of the Church above the other Apostles And yet 1. He grants that all the Apostles in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World in Relation to their Doctrine were equally Orthodox and Infallible As to what concerned their Writings they were alike Canonical and what appertained to the Government of all other Christians they were equally PASTORS HEADS and RECTORS * Pag. 118. This is a large Concession if in what appertained to the Government of all other Christians they were EQVALLY PASTORS HEADS RECTORS then one would think Peter had not a more universal Pastorship than they But we Hereticks are it seems mistaken For notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. PETER was here the only sole Rock on which Ibid. Christ promised to build his Church the only and the sole Rock too But in case he were here the sole Rock if elsewhere the other Apostles are Rocks too what Preeminence doth this give him above them But perhaps he did not intend to lay any Stress upon the word here Well then they were equally Foundations but St. Peter was the only Rock that is to say every one of them was a Rock as much as he and yet none of them was a Rock but he Not so for they were equally Foundations in respect of all other Christians whereas Peter was the sole Rock of the Church Were not then all other Christians the Church not the whole but only part of it for the Church did consist NOT ONLY OF ALL CHRISTIANS WHATSOEVER BVT EVEN OF THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES Then the Apostles it seems were no Christians since besides all Christians whatsoever the Church consisted of the Apostles too that is it consisted of such as were Christians and such as were no Christians It will be said by all Christians whatsoever he means no more than all other Christians whatsoever besides the Apostles Be it so the Apostles then were built upon Peter but all other Christians upon Peter and the rest of the Apostles jointly But how could the Apostles be built upon Peter seeing they were built were both Disciples of Christ and Apostles before this Promise was made to Peter whereas nothing was built on him but what was to be built after it He adds If they viz. the Apostles were Foundations they were sub Petro et post Petrum If they were Foundations sub Petro then Peter was built upon them let it be therefore post Petrum whom our Saviour to preserve Vnity chose out of the Apostolick College and with his own Hands laid NEXT TO HIMSELF †Pag. 118 Christ then as the Foundation of all even of Peter too is laid first Peter is laid next to Christ the other Apostles are laid upon Peter and one upon another in their respective order let us suppose in the order in which they are mentioned by St. Matthew Andrew is laid next to Peter James next to Andrew John next to James Now in this order as Peter is the Foundation of the other eleven Apostles so Andrew is the Foundation of ten which are laid upon him James is the Foundation of nine and so at last Peter's being the sole Rock upon which the Church was built amounts to no more than this that one Stone more was laid upon Peter than upon Andrew and two more upon Peter than upon James Again If the meaning of the Churches being built on Peter and his Successors is that he and they are supreme Heads of the Church ‖ Pag. 131. Then the universal Church all save Peter being built upon Andrew Andrew was supreme Head of all save Peter himself And all except Peter and Andrew being built upon James James was supreme Head of all except Peter and Andrew c. And so the Church had as many supreme Heads as there were Apostles And is this at length all that Excellency of Power they ascribe to St. Peter The Reasons he gives why Christ made Peter the only Rock are 1. Because he did HERE engage himself by Promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the Apostles till they had learnt it of him were ignorant of The Foundations of which reason have been already razed 2. That what our Saviour repli'd to his Confession to pass over those Elegancies vicissim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was reciprocally directed to him only the Pronouns Tu and Tibi excluding Plurality and Partnership not only as an Approbation but as a Reward From the Pronowns Tu and Tibi no more can be inferred than that he in particular was entituled to these Promises not that the other Apostles were excluded nor is there one word to exclude them in those sayings of St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril he afterward quotes to this Purpose It is one thing to say Christ here promised Peter only to build his Church upon him another thing to say Christ here promised Peter that he would build his Church on him only and no other Though the Promise was here directed to Peter only yet nothing is more manifest than that what is here promised was afterward conferr'd upon the other Apostles Instances of a like nature frequently occur in the Holy Scripture But what if this Gentleman presently contradicts himself and yields that Peter is not the only Rock This he certainly does if he grants there are other Rocks beside him and he must of necessity grant this when he says God did destine him to be in a more peculiar excelling manner the THE ROCK on whom he would build his Church * Pag. 121. For could he be the Rock in a more excelling manner unless there were other Rocks whom he excelled Thus after his bold Advance he cowardly retreats The sole Rock is now put the more excelling Rock Christ promised to build his Church not on him only but on him more eminently or on him in a more signal and remarkable manner as he also expresses it †Pag. 119 123. And in this Dr. Tho. G. concurs with the Discussor For having before given St. Jerom's Paraphrase upon the Words he adds By which it appears that our Saviour when he gave to SIMON the Name of PETER that is a ROCK made him the Rock on which he would build his Church and that in a more eminent manner than any other of the Apostles ‖ Sermon of St. Peter p. 23. By the way if he made him the Rock when he gave him the Name of Peter then he made him so before and by consequence not at the same time when he said to him Thou art Peter c. as the Doctor affirms in the Page immediately foregoing for it is certain he gave him that Name before Mark 3. 16. John 1. 42. But let us see what their
l. 2. c. 1. Hieron de Script Eccles in Jacobo was chosen by the Apostles yea by Peter himself as well as the rest as Clemens of Alexandria tells us * Clement Hypot l. 6. apud Euseb l. 2. c 1. Bishop of Jerusalem and preferr'd before them all And therefore after this we find them rank'd in this order James Peter and John James first as the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem Peter next as the first of the Apostles under James as he had been before the first under Christ and John next as the beloved Disciple The like order was observed in the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem For as it was the Custom in such Assemblies for him that was first to speak last so we accordingly find that James as President of that Council spake last summ'd up all that Peter had said before him and gave the final Determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore I judg or give Sentence †Acts 15. 19. Hence it was that the Synodical Decree was drawn up in the words of St. James hence also that when Peter was deliver'd out of Prison by an Angel he commanded the Disciples to shew it unto JAMES and the Brethren ‖ Acts 12. 17. And that when St. Paul came to Jerusalem he went the next day to James * Acts 21. Now though I think it may be convincingly proved that this James was James the Son of Alpheus yet I need not insist upon that because if it was not he but another of the second rank of the Apostles as some contend the Argument will be yet the stronger against St. Peter's Supremacy It is an Argument that the Fathers ascribed no such Authority to St. Peter in that what he produces from them for the Proof of it is nothing to the purpose as will appear by the recital of it When St. Paul says of himself Gal. 1. 18. that he went to Jerusalem on purpose to see PETER St. AMBROSE or the Author of the Commentaries c. gives this reason of it because he was PRIMVS INTER APOSTOLOS CVI DELEGAVERAT SALVATOR CVRAM ECCLESIARVM The FIRST AMONG THE APOSTLES TO WHOM OUR SAVIOUR HAD COMMITTED THE CARE OF THE CHURCHES †Serm. of St. Pet. p. 26 27. What 's here that looks toward a Supremacy Is it that Peter is called the first among the Apostles The Vanity of this hath been already shew'd It is that the care of the Churches was commited to him This is no more than what was committed to every one of the Apostles Nay so far was this Author from asserting this that within six lines after the words quoted he speaks of St. Paul as Co-apostolus fellow-Apostle with St. Peter ‖ Veniens ergo ad eum hospitio receptus est et apud eum mansit dies quindecim quasi unanimus et Coapostolus Comment in Epist ad Galat c. 1. v. 18. And in his Comment upon the 7th ver of the next Chapter he hath these words He viz. Paul names PETER only and compares him to himself because he had received the Primacy to found the Church but he himself also was in like manner chosen that he might have the Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles Yet so as that Peter also might preach to the Gentiles if there was cause for it and Paul to the Jews for we find that both of them preached to both But yet full Authority is acknowledged to be given to Peter in preaching to the Jews and Paul 's perfect Authority is found in preaching to the Gentiles * Petrum solum nominat et sibi comparat quia primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum ut primatum habeat in fundandis gentium Ecclesiis ita tamen ut Petrus Gentibus praedicaret si causa fuisset c. Is this spoken like one who took Peter for the Sovereign of the universal Church I desire the Reader to consult his Comment upon these Words When James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars c. And to avoid tediousness shall recite but one passage upon these Words But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the Face c. Who durst says he resist Peter the first Apostle to whom the Lord gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven BVT ANOTHER SVCH AS HE who in confidence of his Election knowing himself NOT VNEQVAL TO HIM might constantly blame what he had unadvisedly done †Nam quis corum auderet Petro primo Apostolo cui claves regni Coelorum Dominus dedit resistere nisi alius talis qui fiducia electionis suae sciens se non imparem constanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat I leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether this Author took Peter to be Paul's Superiour As little to the purpose is it that St. Chrysostom reckons Peter the Prince of the Apostles as hath been already shew'd And less yet that he calls him their Mouth as might be largely shew'd were it not intolerably irksome to insist upon such Impertinencies And whereas St. Austin says that he represented the whole Church propter primatum Apostolatus by reason of the Primacy of the Apostleship St. Austin himself tells us in another place what Primacy he means Peter says he the FIRST IN ORDER of the Apostles ‖ Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum ordine primus De Verb. Dom. in Evang. secund Matth. Serm. 13. I shall conclude this with the words of two late Authors of the Roman Communion The first acknowledges that the Primacy of St. Peter was that of Order or Place only the second that this Primacy gave him no Dominion over the other Apostles In every Society of Men saith a learned Sorbonist some Order ought to be kept and it is necessary that among many there be some first It is not therefore to be questioned but that in the Colledge of the Apostles some one was first but the Evangelists testify that this one was Peter who when they enumerate the Apostles not only place Peter the FIRST IN ORDER but affirm that he was first * Ellies Du Pin Dissert Hist 4. p. 311. And again The Question whether Peter had the FIRST PLACE among the Apostles is Historical and may be proved by the Testimony of Writers both of the same and of following Ages †Dissert 4. S. 2. p. 313. They say also says another Romanist that he is sometimes nam'd the first but if it had been always so this would not prove that he had Authority over the others as the Pope assumes it over Bishops Among the Presidents a Mortier the first hath no Power over the other nor amongst the Electors of the Empire the Elector of Mentz who hath the first place hath not any Authority over the other Electors and so in every Society the Primacy does not carry Dominion with it ‖ Ils
spared all the places he quotes from St. Austin for the proof of it The previous words in St. Basil he would perswade us make wholly against that for which they are by Protestants alledg'd I shall therefore set them down together with those that follow and then leave it to the impartial Reader to judg They are by himself thus rendred in English For a Governour is nothing else but one that represents the Person of our Saviour and this we are taught by Christ constituting Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself for he says Peter do you love me more than these Feed my Sheep * In the Original 't is constituting Peter Pastor after himself not the Pastor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is there here that is so destructive and fatal to our purpose Does this set Peter above the rest of the Apostles Had not Christ before created every one of them Pastor of his Church after himself But see now what follows And giving henceforth to all Pastors and Teachers an equal Power and of this it is a Sign that they all bind and loose as he †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas Constitut Monast c. 22. He said in the words foregoing that he constituted Peter after himself Pastor of the Church he says in these that he conferred to all Pastors and Teachers not a Power subordinate but equal to that he gave to Peter Whereof this is a sign that they do all bind and loose not in subjection to him but in like manner as he See now what credit is to be given to this Man who can have the face to pervert so plain a Testimony as this That Christ spake these words Feed my Sheep to Peter only is not denied by Protestants and therefore all his Fathers and all his Arguments from the Context to prove it are needless ‖ Pag. 188 189 190. But it is his way to be copious in the proof of that which is granted and to say little or nothing to the purpose where there is most need of proof But though they were for a special reason directed to him only yet all the rest were equally concerned in them SECT II. In all that confused heap we have in the Remainder of these two Chapters there is nothing needs an Answer but that alone which is the main thing in Debate viz. That Peter as supreme Pastor had Authority of feeding the universal Church including both the Apostles and other Christians * Pag. 187 194. This he attempts to prove by two Arguments from the Text it self which he pretends are agreeable to the sense of the Fathers The first from the Question Lovest thou me more than these The second from the Injunction Feed MY SHEEP The Vanity of his Attempt will soon appear 1. If Christ says he had designed him to be no more a Pastor than any of the rest the Question had been more rationally stated thus Simon Jona do you love me AS MVCH as any of the other do but our Savior asking him whether he loved him more than the rest did by the Shape and Frame of the Question intend him a particular Superiority above the rest †Pag. 190 191. To the same purpose Dr. Tho. G. says to take away all Suspicion as if he meant not to give him an Authority above that of the rest of his Brethren he asked him not only if he loved him but if he did not love him MORE THAN THEY manifestly declaring by the Excess of Love he required from him a proportionable EXCESS or Superiority in the Power that he committed to him ‖ Pag. 30. This adds the Discussor seems to me most serenely to be the native and genuine meaning of of our Saviour's Question disarray'd of all Heretical Depravation rarely elegant otherwise I desire to know to what Purpose and Designment was the Interrogation of a greater Degree of Love. I will be so kind as to tell him most serenely what is the native and genuine Reason of this The Interrogation is of a greater degree of Love with respect to that Profession Peter had formerly made tho all should be offended because of thee yet will I never be offended * Matth. 26. 33. Where Peter having professed a Love to Christ above all the rest and yet when he was put upon the Trial having failed more than any of them by thrice denying him our Saviour therefore puts the Question comparatively Lovest thou me more than these Art thou still as confident as thou wast heretofore that thou hast a greater Love for me than these have To which he now returns a more modest Answer professing only the Sincerity of his Love but making no Comparison with others Lord thou knowest I love thee As much as to say I have now learnt by sad Experience not to prefer my self before others I will not therefore say that I love thee more than any of my fellow-Disciples but I dare appeal to thy self who knowest the Heart for the Truth of my Love thou Lord that knowest all things knowest that I love thee And therefore that Peter loved Christ more than any of the other Apostles though it were certain that he did so cannot be concluded from this Question much less that this his egregious Love was the Motive that induc'd Christ to grant him this Commission as the Discussor words it and less yet that Christ by commanding him to feed his Sheep did declare him to be the greatest Lover Nor can it hence be inferr'd as Dr. Tho. G. would have it that Christ required an Excess of Love from him The feeding of his Sheep being enjoyn'd as an Expression of his Love only and not of his greater Love. If thou lovest me as thou professest give proof of thy Love to me by feeding my Sheep There is therefore no need to determine whether Peter's Love surpassed that of all the other Apostles since all that is here upon the Profession of his Love required of him or if the Discussor will have it so the Commission here given him does no way exceed that given to the other Apostles so that supposing him never such a raging ardent mad Lover of Christ as the Discussor very handsomly renders St. Chrysostom's words and that this Love was the Ground of the Trust here committed to him it cannot hence with any colour of Reason be inferr'd that he was advanc'd to any the least Superiority over them And therefore all the Quotations of the Fathers to prove either of these are lost Labour and I may pass over the two next Pages as impertinent except one Passage which deserves an Asterisk had we not met with something like it before That according to the Proportion and Measure of his Love was the Extension and Latitude of his Power †Pag. 192. If the Pope's Power have the same measure to what a narrow Compass will it be reduc'd For if we may judge their Love by what their own Writers tell
again Follow me delivering into your Hands the whole World †P. 195 196. Now in all this 1. It is not said that Christ delivered into his Hands the Government of the Apostles or that he made him their Master 2. Here is no more attributed to Saint Peter than what is by the same Saint Chrysostom ascribed to the other Apostles as has been shewed And therefore St. Peter's Power over them cannot with any more reason be inferr'd from these general Expressions than that St. John or any other Apostle had Authority over him For the Apostolical Commission being not limited to any one Nation but expressed in those general Terms Go into all the World Teach all Nations the Fathers therefore reckon'd every Apostle to have the universal Church and the whole World committed to him So that in their account St. Bartholomew's no less than St. Peter's Power was not confined within the limited Tropicks of any particular Kingdom or Regions but without any Boundary or Horizon to terminate it without any Shores or Frontiers to restrain it was stretched and extended over the vast Vniverse Because to whatsoever part of the World any one of them came he had Authority to preach and baptize to constitute and govern Churches This is no more that what is affirm'd by the Romanist before quoted and by him return'd in answer to these places of Chrysostom Theophylact and others of the like Nature It is to no purpose says he what some Men say that the Sheep of the whole World were committed to Peter As St. Leo in his 3 d Sermon of the Assumption Gregory in his 4th Book and 32. Epist Theophylact upon the last Chapter of John and before these Chrysostom in his 87th Homily upon John and his 80th to the People of Antioch ‖ Chrysostom hath but 21 Sermons to the People of Antioch and therefore here is an error in the number also in his 6th against the Jews For since Peter and the rest of the Apostles had received a Power of preaching through the whole World so that to all and every one of them indefinitely the Sheep throughout the whole World were committed they may be called Pastors of the whole World. So Chrysostom does not scruple to call Timothy Bishop of the whole World and Paul often especially in his second Homily of the Praises of St. Paul. Therefore the Sheep of the whole World may be said to be committed to Peter because he received the Sheep not of any one certain Kingdom or place to be governed by him but indefinitely the Sheep of the whole World to which he should come †Nec refert quod nonnulli aiunt Petro totius mundi oves esse commissas S. Leo Serm. 3. de Assumptione Gregor lib. 4. Epist 32. Theophylact. in cap. ult Johan ante hos Chrysostomus Homil. 87. in Joan. 80. in Pop. Antioch Cum enim Petrus reliqui Apostoli per totum orbem praedicandi potestatem accepissent c. Du Pin dissert 4. c. 1. p. 311. Yea this is no more than what is granted by Bellarmine ‖ De Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 11. l. 2. c. 12. And the Discussor * Part. 3. p. 179 198. who tells us again and again that all the Apostles were Heads Rectors and Pastors of the universal Church and that the whole World was their Diocess Having seen that the Testimontes cited by the Discussor are of no force I would now have proceeded to shew that the Ancients were so far from taking these Words to contain any Power peculiar to St. Peter that they thought not only that the other Apostles but all Christian Bishops were as much concern'd in them as he was that the Duty inculcated by them was equally incumbent upon them all and that they are by them equally apply'd to all without making a Difference or reserving any Prerogative for St. Peter This I say I would now have proceeded to had I not found the Work already done not only by Protestants but many learned Men of the Church of Rome particularly by Vigorius †Ad Respons Synodal Concil Basil Comment c. 13. Launoy ‖ Epist ad Raimund Formentin par 2. ad Hadrian Vallant parte quinta ad Carol. Magistrum and Du Pin * De Antiq. Eccles Disciplina dissert 4. c. 1. p. 310. Whom one would think the Discussor should take himself concerned to answer before he again tries his Skill upon Protestants He next proceeds to several nice Distinctions as he calls them made by the Protestant Divine whose Papers he answers as that Christ said Oves meas not tuas That he said pasce Oves not Pastores That it was not said confirma Filios or Servos or Subditos but Fratres Now though there be good reason and ground for these Distinctions yet because there is no need of them in order to the answering of any thing offer'd by the Discussor I shall not insist upon them He now hastens to conclude but before he comes to it he thinks fit to shew the Protestant Divine how fair an Antagonist he has of him To that end he thus bespeaks him If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep I will exempt them from Peter 's Prefecture †Pag. 199 200. He need not prove this to procure their Exemption unless the Discussor first prove that every Indefinite is equivalent to a Vniversal But he says If they were his Sheep they were under the Denomination of Oves meas recommended to Peter 's Shepherdly Government If so then Peter himself was under that denomination recommended to his own Shepherdly Government for he was no less Christ's Sheep than the other Apostles But Christ often calls them Sheep and this enforces him to believe that he meant them When Christ calls them so he calls Peter so too and this will then enforce him to believe that he meant Peter as much as the rest But the Truth is by Oves meas he meant neither him nor the other Apostles who as they are Apostles are never reckoned as Sheep but as Shepherds and therefore not to be fed themselves by any but all of them to feed others Now that I may not be behind-hand with him in Kindness but may shew my self as fair an Antagonist as he is I will make him the like offer by which he will perceive how concluding his Argument is If he can prove that Peter is none of Christ's Sheep I will then exempt him from being under his own Prefecture Again If he can prove that Peter is no Creature I will exempt him from the Prefecture of the Apostles This Argument to speak in the Words of a learned Divine of our own Church ‖ Conference between Rainolds and Hart. c. 3. p. 90. over-masters the Discussor's because Christ said not to Peter feed ALL my Sheep But he said to the Apostles preach the Gospel to EVERY Creature He will not yet