undeniably evident For it was never said to Iames Iohn Philip c. in particular by name and in the singular I will give thee the Keys much less after such a solemn manner as was to St. Peter First With a particular blessing and encomium of him Blessed art thou in the singular Simon Bar jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven Then alluding to his name in particular And I say unto thee again the singular that Tu es Petrus c Thou art Peter and super hanc Petram upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Then follows And I will give unto thee still in the singular the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Necessarily therefore it must be granted That something was said to St. Peter in particular and that solemnly and upon particular occasion sprung from St. Peters own person Vers. 16. which was not said to any other Apostle in particular And since this saying was a promise it follows That a promise of some thing was made to St. Peter in particular Wherefore seeing this thing promised was the giving the Keys of Heaven it follows that the promise of giving the Keys of Heaven was made to St. Peter in particular Neither will the Doctors proving that they were given afterwards in common to the rest prejudice this at all for there is no difficulty but the same thing may be given to many in common and yet to some one of those many in a more particular manner Now then this promise being made not onely to all the Apostles in general but also to St. Peter in particular it is most consonant to reason and worthy our Saviour not onely to perform his promise but also to perform it according to the tenor and manner in which he promised But the Doctor cannot or will not finde any performance in particular but wholly omits it and indeed it was dangerous for it was our best and most express Testimony and instead of it produces onely a performance to them all in general Whereas Iohn 21. 15 16 17. he might have seen it expresly recommended and encharged upon St. Peter particularly and by name once twice thrice with as many repetitions of his name particularizing him over and over Feed my Lambs Feed my sheep feed my sheep And least such an one as Mr. Hammond should after so many expresly-peculiar designations doubt yet there might be an equality our B. Saviour asks St. Peter Amas me plus his Dost thou love me more then these which manifestly puts a particularity comparison and inequality in Saint Peter from and above the rest of the Apostles in the interrogatory and therefore the inference upon its resolution Feed my sheep encharged upon him as an argument of this greater love and the cause of this trust must in good consequence of reason be unequal and particular in Saint Peter in comparison of the other Apostles These and some others are the Testimonies from Scripture which to speak with the least every impartial man will see that even taken in themselves they sound much to our advantage and the prejudice of our Adversaries but interpreted by the Catholick Church according to her never-erring rule of Faith give us an infallible certainty that they express a Primacy in St. Peter whatever the Doctors private judgment imagines or ghesses to the contrary In a word the result of all Dr. Hammonds Answer is That our Saviour promised indeed in particular but did not perform as he had promised that is particularly but in common onely That is by such a solemn and singularly applied promise he made good St. Peter expect great matters as any man in reason would by such a carriage and then when it came to performance quite deluded his expectation giving him no more then the rest of his fellows It follows in the Doctor The applying the words particularly to Saint Peter hath one special energy in it and concludes That the Ecclesiastical power of Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house of which the Keys are the token Isa. 22. 21. belongs to single persons such as St. Peter was and not to Consistories or Assemblies That whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other and that what he thus did clave non errante no one or more men on Earth could rescind without him which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in the Prelate not in the Presbytery c. This is Master Hammonds Corollary out of the former Texts out of which ploughing with our Heiser he concludes against the Presbyterians But first since those words are particularly applied to St. Peter all that is implied in those words are particularly also appliable to him and this being the Donation of the Keyes it follows That the Donation of the Keys and whatever is consequent out of that Donation or signified by those Keys is particularly applied to him but the Keys are the token saith the Doctor of Ecclesiastical Oeconomy or Stewardship in Christs house This Office therefore must be particularly applied to St. Peter and seeing those words were no otherwise particularly applied to St. Peter then by our Saviours speaking them to him in the singular and in a singular manner as he did it follows That our Saviour told St. Peter in the singular and in a singular manner that he should be steward of his house Also since all particularizing is a kinde of exception from an universality or community and the universality or community before whom our Saviour spoke it and from whom any kinde of exception could be imagin'd to be there made was the other Apostles it follows That St. Peter was particularized out of that community for the office of Steward in Christs house Again since the Keys are the token as the Doctor proves of the Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christs house and however we read that the effect of the Keys that is power of binding and loosing was given to others yet it is no where exprest in Scripture that the Keys themselves the badge of that Office were given to the rest even in common for it s no where read â—â—bis dabo claves it follows manifestly That if our Saviour kept his word to St. Peter since he promised him the signal token of that Office of Steward he performed it to him making him Steward of his house and by the delivery of the Keys installing him in that charge so as onely St. Peter was installed and if the Doctor will needs contend the rest were he must confess withal that he hath no ground for it since he will never read either of such a promise or performance made by our Saviour that he would give the Keys themselves which onely are the badge of that Function to any of the rest Thirdly
expresly manifests a jurisdiction over the Gentiles in all the before-limited Apostles nay even in all the rest The words are these as himself cites them In ipsâ Ierusalem Jacobus Joannes apud Ephesum Andraeas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ GENTIUM ECCLESIAM pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex Dominica pactione sacrârunt James in Ierusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest of the Apostles throughout all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the GENTILES c. Where though the Doctor would blinde the Reader with Englishing GENTIUM ECCLESIAM The Church of the Nations yet it is most notorious That that word in the plural denotes particularly the Gentiles in opposition and contradistinction to the Jews as is evident Matth. 10. 5. In viam Gentium ne abieritis c. Go not into the way of the Gentiles but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel The same is manifest Matth. 1. 4 15. 6. 32. 10. 18. 12. 21. Mark 10. 33. Luke 2. 32. Acts 1. 4 25. 11. 1. and in almost innumerable other places both in the Old and New Testament Thus the Doctor by this his strongest Testimony which he had laid up in store to conclude with a plaudite his foregoing proofs hath quite invalidated all the rest and so ha◠brought his EVIDENCES at length to a fair market which as before they were shewn to be but feeble props to support his partition-wall of Schism which he is about repairing and daubing or playstering over so now by an unluckily-lavish Testimony of St. Prospers which told more then he would have had it he hath made clean-work and quite razed down his former crazy tottering structure and that from the very foundation ID ESTS and all SECT 13. Doctor Hammonds second General Evidence against St. Peters Supremacy from the Donation of the Keys found to be obscurer then the former THe second quarrel the Doctor hath against St. Peter which he calls his second Evidence is That no power of the Keys was given especially to St. Peter and therefore no Supremacy But before we come to scan the Doctors pretended Evidences it were not amiss to advertise the Reader first what an Evidence is that this notion being set as it were in the confines and mid-way between the past and following proofs he may at once and with a readier glance of his judgment examine the strength and validity both of those the Doctor hath already produced and those he shall produce for the future An EVIDENCE therefore is that which is so clear and manifest a representation of a thing to the eye of Reason as unless we should with a wilful blindness shut those discerning powers it is impossible not to see it This clear and undeniable manifestation in Arguments drawn from Reason must be both of the verity of the promises in themselves and also of the necessary and immediate sequel of the Conclusion out of the Premises thus evidenced and if Evidence in either of these be wanting then that Argument cannot in true Reason be styled an EVIDENCE But now a proof from Authority is then call'd an Evidence when both the Testimony it self is authentick beyond dispute and also the words alleaged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no Additions nor Explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample and clear nor possible without manifest wresting to bear any other interpretation and in a word such as the alleager himself were he to express his own thoughts in the present Controversie would make choice of to use This presupposed as a certain rule as no man of Reason can or will deny it both to judge the Doctors former Evidences by and also these in question we will now fall to examine them But first we charge the Doctor with prevaricating against his pretended promise For whereas he begins as bearing us in hand he would bring Evidence that St. Peter had not the Keys given to him in particular he brings not one express proof for the Negative but goes about onely to solve our Testimonies for the Affirmative which is not to produce Evidences of his own but to endeavor an answer to our strong Allegations for it And this is a quite different thing for he who undertakes to Evidence sustains the part of the Opponent but he who strives to evade anothers objected Testimonies manages the part of the Defendant whose offices as appears are opposite and contradistinct Neither indeed is this to bring Evidence but rather Obscurity for though he should obtain his purpose he can onely shew by this means that such or such Arguments do not conclude but not that the thing it self is untrue the evidence of which must depend on the strength of the grounds and goodness of the deductions out of which and by which the contrary is inferred Secondly We charge him with a palpable injuriousness in making the answering our Testimonies out of Scripture the sum of his first proofs and yet omitting our chiefest strongest and most important place of all Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Thirdly We charge him with manifest calumniating in saying We pretend this Donation of the Keys as a peculiarity and inclosure of St. Peter and impugning it accordingly whereas he cannot be ignorant that the Catholick Church holds no such thing but that each Apostle enjoyed an Universal Commission of Jurisdiction and Power to binde and loose which yet debars not St. Peter from being the Head of them and having an especial Authority or Primacy These things premised to shew the Doctors false manner of proceeding we buckle close to the Question The first place which the Doctor cites as alleaged by us for the particular Donation of the Keyes to St. Peter in particular is Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth shall be bound in Heaven Which the Doctor acknowledges a promise to St. Peter yet thinks to defeat it with other two places Iohn 20. 21. and Matth. 28. 19. where they are delivered in common and in the plural to them all Indeed if we pretended out of the former Testimony a peculiarity and inclosure of St. Peter so that he onely and not the others had power to binde and loose then the Doctor had by the following places extending it to all concluded strongly against us But we never pretended any such thing so that the Doctors own calumny is the onely ground of inferring his Conclusion and solving the objected Testimony All therefore that we intend to deduce out of this place in St. Matthew is That whether those words be the Instrument of Christs Donation as the Doctor calls it or no yet something was said to St. Peter in particular and by name which was not said to any other Apostle in particular and by name as is most
pang and sollicitude before they durst open their doors They could neither eat nor sleep in any other security than that which a good Conscience gave them But the cruelst part of all was to defame us of Treason First you make a Law that to acknowledge the Successor of S. Peter had a common superintendency over the Church was Treason and then brand us for Traitors Should a Presbyterian or Independent Power make it Treason to acknowledge Prelacy would you think it reasonable presently to conclude all the older-fashion'd Protestants Traitors Nor can I perswade my selfe I offer any violence to Charity if I plainly and roundly charge you that in all this you proceeded flatly against your Consciences it being impossible you should really judge the bare receiving Orders beyond Sea to be Treason which is abundantly convinc't by your very offer of pardon nay sometimes preferment if hee whom you made the people beleeve was a dangerous and bloody Traitor would but go to Church with you For what Priest dyed for being a Priest but hee might have rescu'd himselfe at the last hour by such submission What Priest was so bad whom you were not ready to entertain with honour if hee would take party with you So unlucky is his Lordship in this Chapter that whatever his intention is he absolves us or at least condemns himselfe if he would be understood as the Letter of his Exceptions sounds he absolutely clears our Religion of a calumny which the Protestants most injuriously charge upon us that our vassalage to the Pope destroyes our subjection to our Prince citing so many instances where Catholikes remaining such have disobey'd the Pope If he on purpose layes his sense to bee ambiguous of which I have some jealousie because hee uses that jugling phrase in effect then hee absolutely proves himselfe a Deceiver In short if he mean honestly he justifies us if otherwise every honest man will condemn him But whatever his inward meaning is the Case open'd will declare it self Christ being to build his spiritual Kingdom upon the Basis not onely of the Roman Monarchy then flourishing but of a multitude of Kingdomes either bred out of the destruction of that or originally independent and distinct from it which in process of time should embrace his Faith saw it necessary to make such a band of Unity betwixt the Churches of which his spiritual Empire was to be integrated that it neither should be offensive to temporal Princes nor yet unprovided of meanes to keep the Church in such amity as to be able to work like the Congregation of Hierusalem which had Cor unum animam unam For this reason he gave the principality among his Apostles to S. Peter and consequently to his Successors among theirs The effect of this Principality was that when publick meetings of Bishops were necessary all emulation who should have recourse to the other was taken away since it was known all were to defer to him meet as and where was most fitting for him Again if any inconvenience fel among Christians there wanted not one who was by office to look to it though in the place where it fell out there were no superior Authority to curb the offenders This one Seat might by the ordinary providence of Almighty God keep a continuance of Succession from S. Peter to the end of the World whereas the vicissitude of humane nature permitted not the like to be done to all the Sees where all the rest of the Apostles had signed their Faith by their precious death Hence 't is the See of Rome is invested with the special priviledge of Mother and Mistress of the Church But not to dive into all or the questionable consequences of this Primacy this onely I intend to insist upon that it is the hinge upon which all the common government and unity in Faith Sacraments Ceremonies and communication of spiritual Fraternity depends which being removed the Church vanishes into a pure Anarchy no one Province or Country having the least obligation to any other to repair to it to obey it to make Meetings and common Ordinances with it So that the whole frame of the Church will be utterly dissolv'd ceasing to be a Church and becomming a ruinous heap of stones precious indeed in themselves but without order shape or connexion By this it clearly followes whatever is the truth of those Questions which our Bishop reckons up to have been disputed between other Christian Countries and the Papacy that as long as this Principality wee speak of is acknowledged so long there is an Unity in the Christian Church all particular Churches being by this subordination perfectly one both with their Head and among themselves This is the bridle our Saviour put in the mouth of his Church to wield it sweetly which way he pleased No dissention in Faith or Discipline nay not any war among Christian Princes could annoy the World if this Authority were duly preserved and governed Many excellent effects we have seen of it and more the world is likely to enjoy when the admirable conveniences of it shall bee unpassionately understood What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent so pious so disinteressed as a good Pope should be to reconcile differences and to hinder bloodshed either in his own people or between his neighbours And who sees not that the Popes office and condition among those who reverence him is perfectly proper for such an effect beyond the hopes of wisedom that had not known th'exprience of it What a desperate attempt then is it to bite at this bridle and strive to put the whole Christian World in confusion This is your crime in this consists your Schism in this your impiety and wickedness Agreeing then that this is the substance of the Papacy temporal preheminences and wealth being but accidental to it wee shall presently see all those arrows which the Bishop shoots against us fall directly on his own head For if the Papacy stand firm and strong in all those Countries that have resisted the Pope when they conceived hee encroach'd on their ' liberties it is evident notwithstanding all such disputes the Being and Nature of one Church is entirely conserved they all governing themselves in an Unity of Faith and Sacraments and Correspondence like one Body as is visible to any that will but open his eyes and so are Members of one Christian Community Whereas the Reform as they call it has cut off England from all this communication and correspondence and made it no part of any Church greater than it self and by consequence that can pretend to Universality and Catholicism but a headless Synagogue without Brotherhood or Order if joyned with any other it is not in a common head but with the tayles of opposition to the Roman Catholike No more can the several Protestant Churches be allow'd to compose one Body than all the ancient Hereticks did nay than Turks and Iewes and