S T PETER's SUPREMACY FAITHFULLY DISCUSSED, According to Holy Scripture, AND GREEK and LATIN FATHERS. WITH A Detection and Confutation of the Errors of Protestant Writers on this Article. Together with A Succinct Handling of several other Considerable Points. The First Book, Divided into Three Parts.  

Romae nutriri mihi contigit atque doceri,  
Scilicet, ut possem Curvo dignoscere RECTUM.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   Chrysost. 67. Hom. John. Permissu Superiorum. 
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel. 1686. And are to be Sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in Holborn.   

ALLA SERENISSIMA PRINCIPESSA Maria d'Esté REINA d' INGHILTERRA, etc.  
MADAMA,  
ACcalorato dagli eccessi della sua paragonata benignità, e bramoso ancora d'apportar luce alla oscurità della mia ignobil penna, non poteva raffrenarmi di non consagrarle questo mio present Libro, il quale hora porgo a Vostra Maestà humilissimament genuflesso o' suoi Serenissimi piedi; accioche altretanto venga illustrato da' scintillanti raggi dell'Augusto suo nome, che porta in front; quanto si trova ombreggiato frà la caligine degli inchiostri miei.  
Sò ben, che davanti à cosi Grand Principessa, dotata di purgatissimo giuditio, e di lucidissimi talenti, non dourebbono à comparir se non d'ye più rinomati ingegni l'opere scielte floridament depinte, e non i rwidi abbozzamenti di scrittor dozzinale; mà la Confidanza ch' io tengo nella sua degneuole bontà mi sublima à sperar, che ella sia non solo per compatir alla rozzezza di questo mal organizzato parto; ma che sia anco per accettarlo, come ossequioso homaggio della mia veneratione; con quella placidezza del volto ch' è sua propria: Riguardando non alla povertà della vittima, mà alla Devotione del cuor, che mi hà mosso à farle questa offerta, inchinevolment portandola all'Ara del vostro Nun.  
Gli è vero, che pecco in temerità; e grandement m' arrossisco della picciolezza dell'oblatione; ma qual essa sia si ella si compiacerà di prenderla ingrado, co'l solo suo compiacersene, le darà quel merito e lustro, del quale essa si trova bisognevole; adoperando à guisa del Rè d'ye Pianeti, che non solo indora le cime di monti, e le summità di torreggianti palaggi àspergendole della luce: ma illustra anchor con li suoi raggi solari le cose più base e vili.  
Francament confesso, che a farle questa dedicatione, da niun' altra ragione sono stato indotto, che dal solo merito del soggetto, che in realtà è vaga, e curiosa; ed oltre di ciò di tanta altezza, che m' è paruto non pur degno della sua pardonanza; ma etiandio in qualche parte proportionata alla di lei grandezza: Onde mi seruirebbe d'apologia, per adombrar la colpa del soverchio ardir, e per rendermi l'assonto perdonabile.  
Echo Signora Sourana, il Beato Pietro divien l'Argomento d'ye miei ragionamenti; e non poteva meglio seruir alla di lui splendidezza, che con procurargli per Tutrice una Principessa; nella chiarezza della nascita, nella sublimità della sort, e nella singolarità della virtù pariment Eccelsa. Sarebbe indecente all'honor di colui, chi s' addimanda il Prencipe degli Apostoli, ad altri esser raccomandato, che alla più eminente Principessa. Echo a qual segno sono guinte le sue glory! il San Pietro, la Pietra Fundamentale della CHIESA: L'USCIER CELESTE, chi tien le chiave del Regno stellato: L' Universale Pastore della greggia di Christo: Il Maggiordomo, il Luogotenente del N. S. Saluator, l'Augustezza del vostro soglio riverisce, ed all vostro Altiero Fato s' inchina rallegrandosi con essa lei in veder la cosi felicement ascesa a tanta sublimità: gli anco implora il suo ambito favour, alla sua protettione, quasi à sicura franchigia recorrendo. Nell suo Real Palaggio chiede un cantoncino, da involarsi a' colpi d'ye nemichi, dalli quali vine bersagliato. Ella si degni di gratiosament raccoglierlo con raggio di luce benigna. Chi sà force vine apportator, ò almeno precursor, di qualche segnalata benedittione, questo Grand Apostolo.  
E bèn vero che è stato la sua disauventura, che li convien rappresentar sele davanti, sotto habito vile & abjetto; il che lo confesso è stato cagionato dalla mendicità del mio povero stile soprofatto dalla ricchezza della materia. E force à vestir suggetto si sublime con abbigliamenti confacevoli, le dovitiose guardarobbe delle prime pen del secolo, diverrebbono esauste e mancanti, non che la mia. Però la supplico à coprirlo col manto della sua gratia, accio che senza rossore e senza tema si lasci veder publicament nella luce del mondo.  
In quanto all contenuto del Libro, hò trattato di  cose, mà più diffusament, e con più essatto squittinio del Primato di S. Pietro: Materia d'importantissimo rilievo, concio sia cosa da questo articolo mal capito, come da feconda Madre, nasce una numerosa figlivolanza d'errori: Et à grand ragion gli si può dir la radice, e l'originario fonte dello scisma Aquilonare: E però è stato il mio principale intendimento, con ogni dilucidità rischiarar questa verità Fundamentale: Impresa ardua e faticosa, oue si trovano molti groppis da scioglier, che a prima vista paiono indissolubili. Hò etiandio attentato di purgar molti altri dogmi Catolici delle macchie, apposteli da' nemichi della verità; disuelando di quegli astuti truffatori l'arte prestigiosa. Smascherando le loro fallaci sofismi, inorpellate menzogne, e colorite ragioni. Mi sono anco affaticato in rintuzzar loro l'orgoglio, & in otturar la loro lingua defamatoria, con la quale ad ogni potere s' adoprano d'annerar ci la riputatione, calunniandoci con imputationi malign & con accuse intessute di falsità, per renderci odiati all popolazzo. Ma quello che più importa, questi Maestri d'errori imbrogliando il senso Germano alla S. Scrittura annebbiano la luce alla verità: bugiardi predicatori con oratorii incantessimi s'impossessando degli affetti, tradiscono l'intelletto: Con si fat frodi uccellando la plebe illeterata instillano massime nocive, à tutto ingegno attendendo alla dannosa agricoltura di seminar zizzanie. Quinci nasce, che questa fiorita Isola, un tempo beata e gradita all cielo, vine diluviata dal ' inondatione spaventevole di set; & insaluatichita da folte boscaglie di Heresy, ortiche, lappole, e tutte le sorti d'herbaccie, con profonde radici abbarbicate: Mentre il buon grano d'ye Catolici dogmi vine suffocato da' sopraseminati loglii delle Dottrine male sane. La gente semplice, cosa verament lagrimevole soddotta dall'ingannevoli imposture delle loro guide infide, smarrito lo sentiero dritto, vanno errando fru ciechi rawolgimenti d'un laberinto inestricabil, testardi, orgogliosi, cervicosi, & invaghiti delle loro opinioni erronee; senza speranza di trovar da' quei giri intricati, l'uscita: Mentre malament ammaestrati sparlano, e con stomachevol maledicenza lacerano la fama della S. Chiesa Catolica, che sola, à Sembianza di Faro, nel buio del present secolo con fido lume può insegnarli, come hanno da indrizzar la navigatione senza naufragar'. Ma sopra questa materia per hora non aggiongerò piu parole.  
Sò bene, che dourei, come e lo stile di chi dedica, decantar di U. Maestà i pregi, e tesserle encomii; mà io non ardisco usurpar la fontione di Panegirici; essendo li suoi vanti maggiori della mia load, & ella maggior di loro. Io per verità non tengo vocaboli espressivi, ne parole adeguate all'eminenza delle sue prerogative; onde mi sembra più meglio con facondo silentio ammirar le, che con imperfetto ragguaglio minorarle. Ma volendo-le celebrar, non saprei donde essordir dourei: La sua Patria, la sua Famiglia, il suo Maritaggio, la sua Leggiadria, le sue Virtù essendo ugualmente sublimi.  
Italia, la sua Culla, & alma Nudrice, è debitrice a lei dell'accrescimento della sua gloria. La bella Italia, Primo freggio della natura, Piazza del mondo, e simolacro del Cielo: Eletta dal nun degli Dei per far più chiaro il cielo, e nove stelle aggiongere al Fermamento, riusce più luminosa, illustrata dagli aurei raggi della U. Maestà.  
Ella uscita dalla chiarissima, & antichissima casa, non solo da lei riceve, ma etiandio accommunica splendour, avantaggiando la chiarezza d'ye Natali, con l'ingrandimento della Fortuna, e con le maraviglie delle sue virtù. O luce, gemma, fior della celeste sterpe.  
— O Del Ceppo Estense  
Propagine maggior, Germe di Regi.  
Nell'Erario della cui Real Persona, hà riposta la Natura i suoi piú ricci monili: Nell cui sagro petto si ritrovano, recapitulate, tutte le divers perfettioni, sparse in alter: Strana union di virtù congiurata per inalzarla à questa degnità: Ma ella precorrendo le dignità, con meriti, in vece di ricever, par che aggiunga honori; esaltante il soglio, non meno, che dal soglio vine esaltata; e verament di tanti pregi adorna, che la minor parte, che la fà risplendere è, la Maggioranza del grado. O Donna Divina fuste prima Reina di valour, che di nome; ne vi mancava altro, ch'l titolo: Voi foste produtta grande, e la vostra fronte dalla natura fù creata maestosa, ma all nostro Grand Rè fù riserbato l'honor à cingerla d'Aurea Corona, il maggior dono d'ye Dei, ma scarsa mercede d'ye vostri meriti.  
O Fida Segretaria! O Individua Compagna dell'Inclito Consort! all'alta bontà di summo Dio è piaciuto, che homai d'ogni passata noia, d'ogni amara doglia, di ogni patiménto sofferto, raccogliate il frutto: Siate hora alzata a tall segno, che di maggior awanzamento è incapace, collocata nel meriggio dell'humana felicità.  
O del Sagro Marito Fortunata Consort! O Dolce Alleviamento d'affari alti! O Grato Ristoro di pensieri noiosi! nel cui petto latteo, lucente specchio d'illibata Matronal pudicizia, nel cui seno odorato, come in porto d'Amor, si ritira il Giacomo, stanco nel sostener lo scettro, & aggravato dalla soma pesante della sua vasta Monarchia.  
O Beata Reggia Coppia! O Felice Inserto, trà l'Inuincibil Leoni, e le Candid Aquile! O Alma con Alma unita, Amante Amata! nissun sinistro awenimenro vi molesti l'almo riposo, odd interrompa il godimento alle vostre compiacenze. S. D. M. vi conceda inalterabil quietezza; giorni sereni, come la faccia d'Angiolo; e tranquilli, à guisa del seno del mar addormentato nella calma. Nelle vostre Person piovi il cielo dilwii di benedittioni; e dopo lunga serie d'anni felicissimi, vi trasferisca N. S. nell'alberghi riposati dell'Eternità, per interminabilment goder le delitie della Beatitudine; cangiando le vostre ombratili, e Caduche Corone ne' Massiccii Trionfali Diademi, imperlati d'immarcessibili gioie, in tessuti di vivaci Margarite.  
Mà hora, condonate mi l'assonto, a voi, O Sire, dirizzo le sequenti righe: non sdegniate l'humil osservanza d'un vostro Lealissimo suddito, mentre con piegate ginocchia riverisce la vostra sagra Maestà, accostando sele, non per ritardar le il progresso, per lo sentiero della fama incaminando all'immortalità: Ma per accompagnarla con lieto applauso, mentre cinta la vittoriosa chioma di trionfanti allori, poggiate la cima alla gloria. Awanzate pur awanzate; e con gesti egregii stancate il volo all Grido, Impareggiabil Giacomo, di nome SECONDO, di senno e di valour PRIMO. Principe veramente degno di tutta la voce della fama, e di tutti gli attributi della load: O saggio, O fort, O magnanimo, O mansueto, O Giusto, O Pio. O Occhiuto Guardator, O Zelante Custode della riputatione del Regno, all cui alto senno, alla cui inuitta destra commise Iddio la cura delle Britanniche Mura. In cui many la felicità d'ye nostri giorni stà riposta. O Novello Alcide domator d'ye mostri; debellator d'Hidri fecondi di rinascenti e rediuiue teste. O del conquassato Navilio Timoniere vigilante, il quale frà le minaccie del mare burascoso hà fatte illustri prove della sua prudenza. O Dono delle stelle cortesi. O REX OPTIME REGUM. O Nun Tutelar, disceso dal cielo. O instancabil Campion della causa di Dio. O Propugnacolo d'ye Fedeli. O Defensitor della Feed. Questa in realtà frà tutte le gioie, della vostra Imperial Corona è la Gemma piu splendida: Concio-siacosa che non habbiamo quàgiù cosa, ne piu veneranda, ne più Augusta della Religione. Deh Poderoso Signor, habbiate pietà della lacera afflitta chiesa, non vi spaventi la malagevolezza dell'impresa; non vi sbigottisca nè la moltitudine, nè la malignità degli awersarii, siate custodito sotto l'impenetrabil scudo della divina protettione, però con ogni in trepidezza proteggete le ragioni della veritiera Religione; à Gloria di Dio, la cui persona sostenete, & à benefizio della sua chiesa che la vostra autorevol difesa supplichevolment implora: Ben sapendo che in rimuneratione d'ye vostri gloriosi sudori riceverete nel secolo venturo messe granita. O che applausi canori u ' assordaranno! che Trionfi festosi vi esaltaranno! che diademi ingioellati vi coronaranno! che splendori abbaglianti vi glorificaranno! ma io mi reprimo perch, sò ch'l vostro ardente zelo non è bisognoso di stimoli, però non aggiongerò d'auuantagio: è la vostra opera natîa il proteggere le cose divine. O Prencipe Santo come valour con Religiosità accoppiate! come brawra con pietà temprate! Quinci nasce the S. D. M. hà voluto ampliar i confini della vostra grandezza. Quinci è che à dispetto di tutti gli sforzi degli huomini tristi: Ad onta dell'Inferno scatenato, siate asceso all Trono d'ye vostri Illustri Antenati; fermata immobilment la corona sù la vostra testa Real: e tutta la malignità d'ye nemichi vostri, non ad altro hà servito, che ad augumentar la chiarezza della vostra sorgente gloria. Indarno ordiscona trame, e fanno empie congiure per distornar gli irretrattabili consigli dell'alta Providenza: Cosi stà scritto nel infallibil libro, nel fatal volume del Destino: In vano folle humana forza, per impedir l'esecutione degli eterni decreti, giostra con incontrastabil braccio di Dio: Gli solo tien in sua balîa le sorti, e le dispensa, come gli aggrada: Corrono dove gli le invia, le Corone, gli scettri ed gli ostri.  
Iddio Arbitro della fortuna, e Regnator d'ye Regi conceda a V Maestà in tutte le sue grandi imprese felice riuscita: E Voglia che ella impadronita degli animi d'ye sudditi, Monarcheggi molti anni in disarmata pace, con imperio assoluto sopra i cuori; portando frà noi ll secolo d'oro.  
Scusate, Bella Reina, l'ardir della mia penna, e gradite questa picciola dichiaratione d'ye miei ossequii, e permettete, che con questo mezzo, mi s' apra l'adito à vostra gratia feconda di ventura: Mentre io, pregandole il colmo di quei maggiori contenti che sono da lei piu ardentement desiderati, con profondissima somessione abbassandomi meal inchino,  
Di Vostra Sacra Maestà Humilissimo & Divotissimo Suddito & Vassallo, Guglielmo clench.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
I Am to acquaint you, by way of a short Preface, that the Foundation of this Book was laid some Years elapsed, occasioned originally by an Intercourse of some Papers, which passed betwixt a Protestant Divine and myself; which thinking, that he would not so soon have interrupted (having promised me a satisfactory Answer) I continued my Indagation, not only for my better Information, but likewise to qualify myself for to mould a Reply, in case he had complied with his Promise. But hearing no more from him, and finding in me a particular curiosity to penetrate deeper into the knowledge of this important Point, I found it absolutely necessary to consult with the Fathers (whom my Opponent had in his Papers to me plentifully cited) to avoid the frequent imposture of false imperfect Quotations, and to acquire their true Germane Sense; concluding, that those great Luminaries of the Church, could not write, both for, and against the same thing, but that this their imaginary contradiction was engendered, either by the Interest, or Weakness, or depravity of their Readers picking out here and there some words, which might seem to countenance their Opinion without weighing the scope of the Author, or examining the precedaneous and succeeding lines. Having given the Fathers a due Discussion, I applied myself to the Modern Authors of both sides, and finding them very warm; the one in maintaining, the other in impugning this Article, and perceiving their Books larded with Citations out of the same Authors, I assumed a Resolution to find out on which side the Cheat lay, and so to detect it, well knowing the great importance of this Point, clearly containing the irreversible Monarchic Government which Christ himself instituted, investing St. Peter with it, as a platform of Polity, for the succeeding Ages of the Church to imitate. From this Model Protestant's have not only revolted; but with opprobrious and reviling Infamations asperse and blacken it, not only to make it, and those who submit to it odious to the Populace, but likewise, to justify their Schismatical Defection from St. Peter's See.  
Having perused the chiefest Propugnators of the Protestant Party, I found my Opponent had very plentifully gleaned from them, presenting me as it were with a Synopsis of them, which he judging Irrefragrable, made me more desirous to Probe it: For indeed I had never embarked myself in so inconsiderable an Employ, as to trouble myself about subverting any particular Error he might solitarily be found guilty of; but the reason that induced me to confute him, was to involve those Authors of whom he had borrowed the substance of his Writings, in his Confutation. So I would not have any one fancy, as if I (guided thereto by some Pique,) had whet my Pen against one particular Person, for I am in perfect Charity with him, and hearty wish he may live to see his mistakes in Religion; one may detest the Heresy, and yet at the same time affect the Person infected with it; according to what St. Chrysost. affirms, De Phocâ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now as to my writing this Book, I was in a manner enforced to Compose it; for having formerly made some imperfect Essays on this Subject, which were communicated to others, I found myself now obliged to write more completely, to prevent that injury to my Name, which possibly might have been offered after my Death, by their being made public. What I have here offered you, is as well performed as my Abilities would permit; so I am not ashamed to own it; and what is here wanting shall be supplied in my Second Book. In the interim, I am to beg your candid Censure, and Pardon for the imperfections of a Work which was begun solely for my private satisfaction; but having how finished it, relying on your Benignity, I divulge it for your benefit: And I shall be hearty glad, and think myself sufficiently rewarded, if it becomes serviceable to you, by confirming you, if a Catholic, or by convincing you, if a Protestant: And so Farewell.   

THE CONTENTS.  



PART. I.  CHAP. I. 
COntaining the Introduction, and concerning St. Peter's True Successor. Pag. 1  CHAP. II. 
Concerning Schism; and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it. p. 8  CHAP. III. 
Concerning the Respect which Catholics pay to Images. p. 27  CHAP. IV. 
Of Transubstantiation. p. 34  CHAP. V 
Of Communion in one kind. p. 43  CHAP. VI 
Concerning Public Prayers in Latin, and of several other Points. p. 50  CHAP. VII. 
Concerning Protestant's objecting Errors to the Church of Rome. The Author's Apology for himself. His Advice to the Protestant Divine with some other Particulars. p 56    


PART II.  CHAP. I. 
The Preface to St. Peter's Supremacy, and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter. p. 67  CHAP. II. 
The difference betwixt Nathaniel's and St. Peter's Confession of Christ: and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum. p. 74  CHAP. III. 
Whether the other Apostles knew Christ's Divinity as soon as St. Peter? Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St. John, etc. And concerning the Devil's knowledge of Christ. p. 86  CHAP. IV. 
Concerning Christ's Reply to St. Peter's Answer. Whether the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy be grounded on Scripture? Of Christ's being the Rock; and St. Peter's being the Rock. Of St. Austin's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram. p. 95  CHAP. V 
Concerning St. Peter's Faith or Confession being the Rock. And how those Fathers, who Interpret that to be the Rock, Exclude not his Person. p. 109  CHAP. VI 
Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations. Of Peter's new Name given him by Christ. Peter the Rock of the Church. Of origen's Interpretation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one. The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place. p. 117    


PART III.  CHAP. I. 
Of the Keys. That they denote Supreme Power. Whether Sobna were Highpriest? Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews. Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs? The differenoe betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood. p. 133  CHAP. II. 
Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head. Of Christian Emperors intermeddling with Church Matters. The Father's Opinion of it. Particular Emperors, who are falsely affirmed by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church. Of our English Kings. Of Henry VIII. Of this our present King James II. p. 144  CHAP. III. 
Of the Keys. In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest. That what Christ replied, was directed immediately to Peter only. In what Sense 'twas extendible to the Rest. How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys. An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys. The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church received the Keys in St. Austin's Sense. Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys? With Advice to him. p. 156  CHAP. IV. 
Of St. Peter's being called Satan: And of his Denial. p. 171  CHAP. V 
The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor. Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission? Why St. Peter was sorry for Christ's thrice ask him. The Reason of the trine Interrogation. That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only. p. 176  CHAP. VI 
That St. Peter's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation. That Peter by virtue of Pasce Oves meas had Universal Jurisdiction. Several nice Distinctions answered, That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles. That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor: With an Apostrophe to him. p. 190      


CHAP. I. Containing the Introduction, and concerning St. Peter's True Successor.  
SIR,  
I Had no sooner perused the Papers you sent me, but by way of a Letter, I imparted unto you my Sense of 'em, and withal, acquainted you, that I would answer 'em. But having at that time Embarked myself in a particular Study, which my Genius warps to with a stronger propension than to Controversal Points in Divinity; I could not prevail with my relucting Fancy to relinquish it, and reassume Polemics, till I had conducted it to a Completion. But I need not make use of any excusive words for this my long silence; matters of so high importance as I am now about to handle, aught to be maturely prepended, and not spurred on with a hurrying precipitancy. However, if the adjournment of this my rejoinder hath seemed to you too long protracted, I am content to afford you a proportioned consideration for your forbearance, which you shall find lapped up in these Papers.  
As for Disputation, I am not so much a foreigner to myself as to be ignorant of its being an employment, not only discordant to my Temper, but surmounting my Abilities; requiring a richer Exchequer of Learning than I can pretend to: So I would not have you figure to yourself, that I catch at the name of a Disputant; I yield that Dignity to those whose politer Temper, and more embellished Parts entitle 'em to that Honor. But if my Talon did excel this way, I should very unwillingly grapple with so topping an Antagonist as you are: It might seem presumption in me, who am but a Laic, to enter the List, and take up the Gauntlet against so eminent a Controvertist. But that which makes me more backward herein, is my fear (you being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of incurring the displeasure of the rest of your Coat, who like the Bells in Jove's Dodonean-Grove, hang so close together, that if one be touched, all of 'em sound; this inconvenience I have fully surrounded; so I shall not here so much pretend to oppose you, as to defend myself, which in Honour I am obliged to do. And I hope hereby I shall not disgust any Ingenuous Person; for you having answered me so briskly, and so convincingly, as you fancied, I could do no less than try whether your, or my Opinion were erroneous, and so expiscate the Truth, which I find not to float on the Surface of the Well, but to dive very deep, according to the saying of Pyrrhon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Truth lies at the bottom.  
It will then be my present employ to examine those Papers which I composed, both for the Satisfaction and Defence of my Brother, and withal, to bring your Answer to a strict Disquisition; this is my whole proponiment, my pretensions aspiring to no more than what every Christian ought to have, a short Scheme and Diagram of his Religion, which is what St. Paul calls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such a Platform of Sound Doctrine is attainable by one of the Laity, if he will bend his Mind to the Acquisition of it, and not indulge himself in a lazy, desidious acquiescency: For as St. Chrysost. affirms, Serm. de Sigillis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every Soul hath in itself the Seed of Divinity. Now if it ever were necessary to possess such an abridgement of wholesome Principles, 'tis much more so in this humorous, inquisitive Age, which presents us with so many varieties of false Opinions, dressed up in the semblance of Truth, that if a discerning Circumspection be not made use of, the fallacy may pass undiscovered; and whoever considers the vast differences amongst those who are in the attire of Christians, their various and discrepant Judgements in Doctrinal Points, and ritual Ceremonies, and with what ardour every Sect endeavours to defend its Opinion, and with what acrimony it opposes that of another's, must needs judge it absolutely necessary to purchase so much knowledge, as to be able to shield himself from those many impostures which Prestigiators in Religion obtrude on credulous Persons, under the livery of saving sound Doctrines. This made Theoph. call false Teachers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dicers or Coggers of Dice, alluding to St. Paul's Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This setting, topping the Die, even in Temporals, is pernicious enough, being able to decoct and ruin the most flourishing Estate; but in Eternals, it is far more exitial and destructive, as much as Spirituals transcend Temporals. It will therefore highly concern every one to guard himself from the grand cheat of being imposed on in matters of Religion, and considering there is so much cozenage in the World, to be cautious what Articles he admits as Sterling, measuring his Faith by a sure Standard; which is the Method I design to take in my ensuing Discourse, not devoting myself to any Private Persons Opinion or Dictates, but steering my course by the unerring Pharos of Antiquity.  
The first Objection you make against my Treatise of St. Peter's Supremacy, is, That if his Monarchic Power were supposed, the Bishop of Rome 's Succession in that Dignity could not be inferred any more than the Primates of Antioch, etc. This Opinion of yours I look on as erroneous; for those Primates succeeded him not in the full ampltitude of his Power, but in that particular Diocese, Succession to any in his whole right being only to him who leaves his place, either by voluntary Resignation, Deposition, or natural Death; whereas St. Peter, though he was at Antioch for some time, yet he invested in the High Priesthood, quitted that place, Vivus valensque, and with his Person transplanted all the Pontificial Dignities from thence to Rome, having upon his departure from Antioch subrogated in his place, either Evodius or Ignatius: This his removal from thence to Rome, is asserted by St. Chrysost. in Inscript. Act. Apostol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is one of the Prerogatives of our City of Antioch, to have had first the Prince of the Apostles for its Teacher; for it was no more than fit, that that City in which the name of Christians was first heard, should receive the first Shepherd of the Apostles; but when we had him for our Teacher, we did not keep him all his life-time, but we delivered him over to the Royal City of Rome.  
This clearly manifests his relinquishing Antioch, and his Transmigration to Rome, where he settled and fixed his Cathedra, and concluded his Life by a most glorious Martyrdom; so that the Bishop of Rome, who succeeded St. Peter, dying there, and not the Bishop of Antioch (which place he had abandoned) inherits the Pontificate and Prefecture of the Universal Church, as being his apparent Heir. Hence St. Hierom in his 58th Epistle ad Damasum, calls him, Successor Piscatoris, and in the Council of Ephesus, Parte Secunda, Pope Celestine is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Successor and Vicar of St. Peter; and accordingly, Rome, by the Fathers is called, St. Peter 's See, as in St. Augustin, count. literas Petil. Cathedra quid tibi fecit mali in quâ Petrus sedit & in quâ hodie Anastasius sedet. And likewise St. Hierom in his 57th. Epistle ad Damasum, Ego Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione consocior: Suitable to which, is that of St. Cyprian, Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam Principalem. But that which gives me full satisfaction in this point is, the Custom of the Fathers, who in their enumeration of the Bishops of Rome place St. Peter first, as the Author of that Succession; some of them join St. Paul with him, Irenaeus reckons the Catalogue from St. Peter and Paul to Pope Eleutherius; Eusebius likewise to Sylvester; Optatus, from St. Peter to Siricius; St. Austin, from St. Peter to Anastasius; Tertullian, from the same to Anicetus, and demands of the Heretics of his time, a List of their Bishops: Irenaeus having begun a Roll of Pope's succeeding one the other, adds, Per hanc Successionem confundi omnes Haereticos; and St. Austin, contra Epistolam Manichei, confesses, that this Succession of Bishops from St. Peter, was one of the Reasons which kept him in the Catholic Church.  
'Tis observable, That when the Father's design to give the true Succession and descendency from St. Peter, as he was the Christian Highpriest, they do not enumerate the Antiochian, but the Roman Succession. Not placing St. Peter first, than Evodius or Ignatius, Bishops of Antioch; but first St. Peter, than Linus, etc. Bishops of Rome: These things duly prepended, I could not but wonder how B. Bramhal should question how the Bishop of Rome came to be St. Peter's Heir, ex ass, to the Exclusion of his Elder Brother, the Bishop of Antioch. I never read, says he, that the Church was governed by the Law of Gavelkind, that the youngest must inherit. Here he affecting to show some sportive Wit, seemed to me to talk more like a Lawyer than like a Divine.  
But now you pretend to give a Reason why the Bishop of Rome could not succeed St. Peter in his Dignity, affirming, That singular and personal Privileges are not derivable to Successors; herein you are certainly right, for Privilegium personale cum persona moritur; but then, on the other side, you are as much in an Error in fancying what was spoken by our Saviour to him, was delivered as to a Private Person, and to terminate with him: You had pleased me very well had you mentioned what those singular Privileges were, that were so solely affixed to St. Peter's Person, as not to be inherited by his Successors, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. was none of them, nor Confirma Fratres, nor Pasce oves meas. Cardinal Bellarmine gives this account of them, Quaedam dicuntur Petro pro se tantum, ut vade post me Satana, Ter me negabis; quaedam ut uni ex fidelibus, ut si peccaverit in te frater; & quaedam pro se & Successoribus ratione officii Pastoralis, ut Pasce oves meas, etc.  
This Pastoral Privilege conferred on him, was not Personal, but transient to his Successors, being granted him as a Public Person, so not to expire with him, but to survive in his descendants. For the Office of a Pastor being ordinary, aught to be continued as long as there be Sheep, Quamdiu permanet ratio institutionis Christi, tamdiu etiam res instituta necessario permanere debet; the Pastorship which was instituted for the good of the Flock, aught to have an equal duration with it, which is to the consummation of the World. The Bishops of Rome then lineally descending from St. Peter, have the same Pastoral Authority devolved on them by Divine Sanction which St. Peter had over the Church, they succeeding him in all those prerogatives which are ordinary and belonging to him (as Supreme Bishop) for the Government of the Church; for eadem Antecessoris & Successoris ratio in alicujus maneris obeundi ratione; so that Pastoral Praefecture which St. Peter was invested in, after his Death passed to his Successor, by him handed to the next, from him transmitted to the following, etc. and so by a perpetual descendency, embalmed and conveyed to this present Bishop, as being Ordinary, successive and indefectible; and correspondently I find Eusebius in his Catalogue of Roman Bishops having ranked St. Peter in the Van, under the Title of Christianorum Pontifex Primus, to reckon Linus for the Second, and the rest in their order, to Sylvester his Synchronist the one and thirtieth Pope from St. Peter; this Catalogue was continued by St. Hierom to Damasus the thirty fifth from St. Peter. The Popes of Rome then succeeding St. Peter in the Pontificate, are Jure Successionis, Heirs to the Sacerdotal Power and Dignities which belonged to St. Peter's Sacred Function, as he was Pontifex Christianorum, it being but rational, that those Supreme, Pontificial Royalties which St. Peter (for the good of the Universal Church) was inrobed in, should still reside in his Successors for the keeping all subordinate Pastors in their duty, and for the prevention of Schism, which will of necessity arise where there is no Coercive, Compulsory Power to quash it. Thus in the Old Law, there was a Sacerdotal Succession of High-Priests, and Aaron (who was the Head of the Levitical, as St. Peter was the Head of the Christian Hierarchy) was succeeded by Eleazar, and he by Phineas, etc. and the Authority which Aaron and his Children was invested with, died not with 'em, but was propagated to the succeeding High-Priests.   

CHAP. II. Concerning Schism; and whether the Roman or English Church be guilty of it.  
THE next thing you observe, and seem to mislike, is my skipping over that part of your Papers which treated of Schism. I must confess, I did decline handling it, being unwilling to enter into so large a Field of Matter, and so I am still; but because you urge, and remind me, and seem so fond of what you wrote on that Point, as to take it ill that I made a Preterition of it, I shall now supply what I omitted then, for I perceive it is your temper to imagine what I did not answer, to be unanswerable. It cannot but be as pleasant to hear you declaim against Schism, as to have heard Verres inveighing against Theft, or the Gracchis against Sedition. You are pleased to call it Damnable Schism, the Epithet was very proper, and now look about you, and strictly examine, whether like David in his Parley with Nathan, you have not through another's side imprudently transfixed yourself, by being found guilty of that Crime you have so severely condemned in another. I perceive you make use of all your Artifice for your compurgation, but all is but fucous and elusive, your actual Separation having too much evidence to be denied, and too much atrocity to be defended.  
I shall now, as summarily as I can, contract what you writ on this Subject, and then shape my Reply to it. Having defined Schism to be a voluntary departure from the Catholic Church, you divide it into Paternal and Fraternal; the former you say is a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to, and with our Ecclesiastic Governors; the latter you term to be a Causeless Division, of one particular true Church from another; than you say your Church is not guilty of Paternal Schism, because you perform Obedience to Christ and his Apostles, observing all their Rules and Ordinances left in the Scripture; than you pay Reverence to the Fathers of the Church, and own the Four first General Councils, and are willing the differences 'twixt your and other Churches should be decided by their Umperage. This you judge sufficient to clear you from Paternal Schism. As for Fraternal, you very fairly clear your Church of that, because you give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches and Christians in the World.  
Having, as you fancy, acquitted your Church, you bring in your Indictment against the Church of Rome, accusing her as notoriously guilty of Schism in both respects. First, of Paternal by many Doctrines and Practices contrary to the commands of Christ and his Apostles; and of the Ancient Church, such as are Image-worship, Transubstantiation, etc. Then you say, she is guilty of Fraternal Schism by her renouncing Communion with all Churches not in subjecton to her; denouncing all damned, who submit not to her by sending Emissaries into all the World, labouring to make a Spiritual Conquest of all other Churches, etc. These things prove the Church of Rome, you say, guilty of Schism in both acceptations. This is a short abridgement of what you writ about Schism, which I design to answer, as soon as I shall have premised something concerning the Nature and Danger of that Sin: Schism does essentially consist in deserting the External Communion of Christ's Visible Church; 'tis a most heinous sin, as tending to the destruction of Christ's Mystical Body, whose Essence consists in the Union of all its substantial parts, its ruin in their Division; 'tis a cutting Christ's Seamless Garment into Shreds, as St. Chrysost. affirms. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
What the bold Soldiers dared not to do, the Audacious Schismatic performs: This sin is of that Malignancy, that neither rectitude of Faith, nor a Virtuous Life, nor Good Works can atone; nay, Martyrdom itself, according to St. Cyprian, cannot expiate it: Macula ista nec Sanguine abluitur inexpiabilis & gravis culpa discordiae, nec passione purgatur. St. Chrysost. says of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing is worse. August. count. Parmen. Lib. 2. says, Non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis. The Devil seeing his Idols demolished, and his Temples deserted by the planting of Christianity, found out this Sin out of black Revenge. Excogitavit novam fraudem ut sub ipso nominis Christiani titulo fallat incautos haereses invenit & Schismata quibus fidem subverteret, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet, unitatem rapit de ecclesia homines, says Cyprian in his Book De Vnit. Eccles. How lucky this Stratagem has been to him, the many Rents and Fractions amongst Christians can attest. I shall now examine, whether the Roman or the Protestant Church be guilty of this damnable Crime; and herein I shall regulate my Discourse according to the Definition you have made of it; namely, That it is a voluntary departure from the Catholic Church, and this being an evident Matter of Fact, it will be easy, to determine, which forsook the External Commuion of the Visible Church. That the Church of England, in the beginning of the Reign of Henry the Eighth, agreed with the Church of Rome, and all other Churches in her Communion concerning Faith and Doctrine, is undeniable; That at his coming to the Crown, there was an Actual Church Government settled by a long continuance in Ancient Possession, is undebatable; That Protestants altered the then owned Faith, and broke the Bands of that Government, is manifest to the World. Both the Time when, and Occasion why, can be assigned. Moreover, That the first Protestants were born of Catholic Parents, and Originally in the Communion of the Catholic Church, is unquestionable, and that they, as desirous of Innovation voluntarily departing from that Church, renouncing those points which were Principles of Unity both in Faith and Government, ipso facto became Schismatics, is easily proved; for Schismaticos non fides diversa facit, sed communionis disrupta societas, says St. Hierom on Matt. 11.  
Now, how Rome should be guilty of Schism, which did never withdraw from any known Christian Society, or departed from the Communion of any former Church, with which before she held Communion, I cannot possibly apprehend; she continued fixed where she was, as the Pillar and Firmament of Truth. All Heretics, and Schismatics go out of her; this going out, is an ancient note of Falsehood, Truth being elder than Error; They went forth from us, 1 John 2. 19 And certain that went from us, Acts 15. 14. and accordingly St. Austin. 3. tract. Epist. Johan. says, Omnes Haeretici, omnes Schismatici ex nobis exierunt, i. e. ex Ecclesia exeunt. And de Symb. Lib. 1. Haereses omnes de Ecclesia exierunt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite praecisa; ipsa autem manet in sua radice. And in this Case the Rule of Optatus is very observable, Videndum est quis in radice cum toto Orbe manserit, quis for is exierit, Lib. primo. Now as for Luther and Calvin, when they had voluntarily departed from the Roman Church, they separated from all the Christian-Churches in the World, and consequently, from the Catholic Church; for they did not adjoin themselves in Communion of Sacraments to any Christian Church which was existent before their revolt from the Roman, there being not one Church to be found upon Earth antecedent to their Apostasy, to which they did apply themselves after their defection, but they stood alone till they had acquired more Revolters out of the Roman Communion; this is most clear, and confessed by themselves. Luther in his Preface to King Henry, says of himself, Solus primo eram; and Calvin to the same effect in his Epistle to Melancthon, Absurdum est postquam discessionem a toto orbe facere coacti sumus inter ipsa principia alios ab aliis dissilire; So this New Church at the first, was but one Person, which by the accession of more Schismatics grew numerous, being protected by the Secular against the Spiritual Power.  
But to prove your departure from the Roman Communion to be unvoluntary, and consequently not Schismatical, according to your definition of Schism, you cite a saying which you say was King James', Non fugimus sed fugamur; I must confess, I never could be informed how the truth of these Words could be made out; for Protestants before their Excommunication having made a wilful breach, may be said to be Fugitivi rather than Fugati: and accordingly, their Expulsion may not so properly be termed, a driving them out of the Church, as their Punishment for going out, they having before deserted the Church of their own accord. So she had too much reason to make use of her Spiritual Weapons; for they, by their Novel Doctrine, and Schismatical Separation, having first receded from her, and by way of Anti-communion, raised a new party of Pretended Reformed Christians distinct from the general Body of the Catholic Church, having instituted new Rites, and moulded new Articles of Faith, contrary not only to the Roman, but to the Faith of all particular Churches then known, immediately before they began their Separation, and refusing to Communicate and join with her in Public Liturgy, and Participation of Sacraments, disowning her Faith and Power, to which they had submitted for above 900 Years, and persisting obstinate in their Opinions and Separation, the Church having with much patience attended their return, and having tried all Methods that might seem conducive to their amendment, was enforced at last to proceed against them, according to her Canons by a just Excommunication, eliminating them from her Bosom for their Schism, as St. Paul did the Infamous Corinthian for his Incest, who by the heinous offence gave the first cause of his Excision: So 'tis manifest, that the original departure was theirs, and accordingly St. Hierom in his Comments, Epistle to Titus avers, Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo. And Cyprian in his Fortieth Epistle, Paenas quas meruerunt pependerent, ut a nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent & de Ecclesiâ se expellerent: For the Church forsakes no Person, neither doth she eject any, but like a tender Mother, cherishes her Children in her Vital and Fotive Breast, unless such as wilfully separate themselves by their obstinate adhesion to Heretical Doctrines, or by persevering in a Flagitious course of Life; so as she is not now the hindrance of their Reunion, so neither was she at first the occasion of their Separtion.  
Protestants well knowing, that their formal Schism can neither be denied, nor maintained; find themselves obliged to acknowledge the Matter of Fact, but to blanche and candy their Crime, pretend to have had a just Cause given them for their Separation; and upon this supposition accuse the Church of Rome of causal Schism. This is what I conceive Dr. Stillingfleet to mean, when he says, The Church of Rome, imposing unlawful Conditions of Communion, it was necessary not to Communicate with her. Bishop Lawd is very clear herein, The cause of Schism is yours, says he, for you thrust us from you, because we called for Truth and Redress of Abuses. As for Abuses, if any were crept in, they ought to have been redressed; and this is properly Reformation; but to alter received Articles of Faith established by Councils, that is Heresy. But I could not be satisfied what truth it was, that the Bishop says, they called for: I am fully convinced, that in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Reign, our English Church did retain as a faithful depositary, all those Sacred Truths which Gregory the Great conveyed unto us by St. Austin, who I do fully believe did convert this Nation to the true Faith, establishing his Doctrine with Miracles, which Doctrine is still preserved unstained by the Catholics of this Kingdom. So I could not understand what the Bishop meant by calling for Truth, neither could I tell when, or by whom it was called; for I must confess, Henry the Eighth, who opened the Sluices to let in all the ensuing Mischief, did call, and that Vocally, but not for Truth: His first call was for a fresh Bedfellow, that was Carnal; then he called for innocent Blood, that was Tyrannical; his other call was for church-good and Lands, that was a Sacrilegious call; he had no scruples concerning the truth of his Religion, neither altered he any thing of it, but to gratify his Lust and Covetousness, Nullâ fere in re a fide Catholica discessit, praeterquam libidinis & luxuriae causâ, as Sanders affirms of him: And accordingly he ordered his Son to be brought up in the Catholic Religion, excepting the Title of Head of the Church. Edward the Sixth was too young to call for Truth; he had most reason to call for it, being early infected with the Zuinglian Heresy, contrary to his Father's Will, by the Sacrilegious Protector, who did call indeed, but it was for the remains of the Goods of the Impoverished Church; he likewise called for false Teachers to dilate the Gangrene: Martin Bucer a Dominican, Peter Martyr a Canon-Regular, Ochinus a Capuchin, Apostate Monks and Sacerdotes Vxorati, from such we were not like to have Truth, who, not only fell from the Catholic Church, but flagitiously violated their Oath of Continency, for which, by the then established Law, they lay obnoxious to an infamous Death. I shall say nothing of Queen Elizabeth, she being a Woman, and wholly unqualified to meddle with Church Affairs, and to tamper in Articles of Faith; neither shall I say any thing of the succeeding Princes, who found the Schism begun, and Religion altered to their Hands. I know very well, that in this case Truth is the Pretext, but that is no more than what is in the Mouth of every Sectary: This is the usual Mask to hid the ugly Face of a foul Action, which without so fine a cover would affright those deluded Souls that are cheated with its beatiful Paint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there must be a plausible glittering Title, a winning Frontispiece to a bad Enterprise; but if the Origine of this unhappy Schism be examined, we shall find that Revenge, Haughtiness, impure Flames, and desire of Plunder were the Springs that moved the first Machine, and nothing at all of Truth. I do not find, that Henry the Eighth did ever recant the Book, he writ in defence of the Roman Church; he hated both Lutheranism and Zuinglianism, and fell out with the Church, rather for its Booty and Prey, than for its Doctrine; and this was Tyndals' Sense of it in his Letter to Frith, where writing of King Henry the Eighth's intention against the Pope and Clergy, saith thus, Fox pag. 987. I smell a Council to be taken, little for the Clergies profit in time to come, but you must understand, that it is not out of pure Heart, and for love of Truth, but to avenge himself, and to eat the Whore's Flesh, and drink the Marrow of her Bones, which because 'tis somewhat enigmatically expressed, Fox is pleased in the Margin thus to expound; eating the Whore's Flesh, is to spoil the Pope's Church only for the Prey and Spoil thereof, not Religion. Bishop Bramhall is very honest herein, As for the suppression of Monasteries (says he) we fear that covetousness had a great Oar in the Boat; and that sundry of the Principal Actors had a greater aim at the Goods of the Church than at the good of it.  
Having premised thus much, I shall now take notice how you acquit your Church of Schism, even according to your own Distinction and Division of it: You say she is not guilty of that Crime, because she owns and performs Obedience to Christ and his Apostles; Then, because she pays Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church: Thirdly, Because she owns the first four General Councils, etc. This you think enough to clear her of Schism, whereas 'tis nothing at all to the purpose, being a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and besides the Cushion; you define Paternal Schism to be a renuntiation of Obedience and Communion to and with our Ecclesiastic Governors, so how do any of these Reasons clear you of it? You are accused by Catholics, of a voluntary departure out of the Catholic Church, of a defection from the Government of your Occidental Patriarch, under whose Spiritual Prefecture this Nation was for several hundred Years. From this your Spiritual Governor you have revolted, renouncing his Authority, looked on as of Divine Institution; this being your Accusation, the Reasons alleged for your acquittance are too weak and dilute for such a purpose. Now, tho' you come off with a scratched Face concerning your Paternal, I must needs say, you come off very fairly with your Fraternal Schism, because you so courteously give the Right-hand of Fellowship to so many Churches; and herein your obliging carriage is highly to be commended, you extending your kindness to Lutheran, Calvenist or Huguenot; and indeed, to any Church that will but join with you in separating from, and defaming the Catholic.  
The next thing I have to do, is to see how you prove Rome guilty of Schism; and the Method you take herein, I found to be as improper as that by which you would clear your own Church of it. For instead of proving Rome separating itself from any visible Society of Christians with whom she formerly held Communion, which is properly Schism, you accuse her of false Doctrine; which Accusation, could you be able to make good, it would prove her to be rather Erroneous than Schismatical.  
But I shall now descend to the Examination of those three Particulars, by which you would prove yourself not guilty of Schism. The first is because you own, and perform Obedience unto Christ and his Apostles, and observe all the Rules and Ordinances they have left you in the Scriptures. But how you can pretend to pay full Obedience to Christ, and disobey his Spouse whom he enjoins you to hear under penalty of being reputed an Ethnic; or how you can fancy to be united to him, when you fall off from his Mystical Body, the Church, of which he is the Head, I know not; or how you can be said to follow all the Rules of the Apostles, when they recommend Tradition, and you reject it; when they tell you, that the Church is the Pillar and Firmament of Truth, and you make her Apostatical. I could instance in many particulars, how counter you run to the Scripture you so much pretend to, but I shall wave them, and only tell you, that it is an unwarrantable way to fall off from the Church, and then appeal to that Scripture which commands you to obey the Church; yet this is your practice, when you dispute with Catholics; but when you have to do with Sectaries, who plead Scripture against you, than you have recourse to Fathers, and Tradition, using the same Arguments against them as we do against you.  
It was long ago observed by the Fathers, That Heretics were great pretenders to the Scriptures, backing their false Opinions with it. Omnes Haeretici ex sacris Scripturis falsas atque fallaces Opiniones suas conantur defendere, as Hilarius attests Lib. prim. de Trint. & Vincent. Lyrinensis, to the same effect, Nihil de suo proferunt quod non Scripturarum verbis adumbrare conentur. This they formerly did, and still do, to reject the Authority of the Church, and to avoid a living Judge they appeal to the Scripture; then they assume to themselves what they deny the Church, it's Exposition, perverting its true Sense according to their wild Fancies, and so crooken the Rule to their own Bent: This was observed by St. Basil Hexam. Hom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; These falsifiers of Truth which do not teach their mind to follow the Scripture, but contort the meaning of Divine Writ to their own Wills. Now tho' the Scripture, as being the Word of God, is infallibly true, yet it does witness of itself, that it is not of private Interpretation, and those that dare Expound it that way, may instead of sound Truths, extract damnable Doctrines. St. Austin avouches, That all Heresies take their Birth from its wrong Interpretation, in his 222 Epistle to Consentius, Neque enim natae sunt Haereses nisi dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene: To avoid this, we must not Interpret them according to our Fancies, but adhere to the Interpretations of the Church, not at all questioning, but that that Spirit of Truth which did direct it, to distinguish Canonical from Adulterine Writ, will likewise instruct it in the right Interpretation: And herein consists the difference betwixt Catholics and Heretics, as St. Austin observes, Libro de Gratia. Haeretici secundum suum sensum Sacras Scripturas legunt; but we according to Antiquity and constant Tradition, receiving both the Scripture, and its Sense from the Church; and her Authority is so considerable herein, that St. Austin. Epist. Manich. says, Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas.  
The Second Reason, is because you pay Reverence to the Ancient Fathers of the Church. Of this I shall hereafter have occasion to take notice, and likewise of your Honesty and Integrity in quoting them.  
The Third Reason to acquit yourself of Schism, is, because you own the first four General Councils, and are willing that the difference betwixt you and other Churches should be decided by their umpirage; but I must tell you, That if you owned Forty Councils instead of Four, and revolted from the Church, that would not discharge you of the Crime of Schism: As for your pretended willingness to admit them as Judges in differences betwixt you and other Churches, this will appear to be a very empty Compliment, unless you can prove, that they made Definitions concerning our Modern Controversies; they convened to define about the Heresies rise in those days of the Arrians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Macedonians, not concerning those of Protestants, a word not then known, and had their Doctrines been then extant, they would as certainly have been condemned as the foregoing: I shall only instance in one point, in one Council, that of Chalcedon; I am fully convinced, that that Council which paid so much respect to Pope Leo, acknowledging him to have received the custody of the Vineyard from Christ, granting him, when they sent their Relation to him to preside over them, by virtue of his Legate, as the Head does over the Members, would have severely sentenced your revolt from that See. That Council (which deposed Dioscurus the Patriarch of Alexandria, and consequently no Subject of Leo's, as he was Patriarch of the West; not for any Erroneous Doctrine, but for his Sauciness against him, whom they call his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord; and because he dared to convene a Synod without leave from the Apostolic See) would most certainly have condemned your defection ftom the Authority of your Occidental Patriarch, and more, your Opprobrious Revile of him. But why the first four General Councils? why not a Stage farther? why Hic Terminus haeret? Can you prove that all Contests in Matters of Faith, arising in future Ages, and in much different Centuries could possibly be determined in those Councils? Would you have an Heresy be condemned before it be broached? your referring all our Controversal Differences to their Decision, is as irrational as if Macedonius, who was condemned concerning his Heresy about the Holy Ghost in the Second General Council, had appealed to the Nicene, which assembled chief to confute the Heresy of Arrius concerning God the Son, and determined nothing about the Third Person of the Trinity: Besides, I know no reason why the Church should be credited in the first four General Councils, and slighted and disbelieved in the following; Christ promised he would be with them to the consummation of the World; I do not in the least question, but that the same Spirit of Truth which guided and directed the Church in its first Synods, did accompany it in all its succeeding Conventions, rendering it inerrable in its Definitions of Faith. I can find no place where Christ promised to be with them for a limited time, so as to direct them in their first four Assemblies, and to leave them for the future to themselves: It would have been a great encouragement to all new Heresies, if no Decision in God's Church should have been after the first four General Councils. The truth of it is this, 'Tis usual with Heretics to be Enemies to those Councils, and to reject them that have condemned their Opinions, charging them with Error as the Arrians did that of Nicene; the Nestorians that of Ephesus; the Eutichians that of Chalcedon, and accordingly the Emperor Zeno being an Eutychian, having put out a Profession of Faith, which he called Henoticon; he left out the Council of Chalcedon, which had condemned that Error, embracing only the Faith of the three first Councils.  
The next thing I shall Discourse of, will be concerning your Church which you assert to have all the Essentials of a true Church, and to be a sound part of the Catholic; This I wish you had proved as manifestly as you confidently affirm it: Had you done this, I would never have forsaken its Communion. You cannot but imagine it to be a very hard task for any to forsake his Relations, his Friends, his Countrymen in Matters of Religion, and thereby to expose himself to their Odium, the severity of rigid Laws, and his Temporal Concerns to ruin; nothing but the saving of one's Soul can be preponderant to all these Mischiefs. So you may conceive, that had I imagined myself as safe, in reference to my Salvation in your Church, as where I now am, I had most certainly fixed myself there, Clavo Trabali.  
As to your asserting your Church to have all the Essentials of a true one, I must tell you plainly this, That I find in the Fathers, many to be condemned for Heretics, for denying but one of those many Articles which you disown: But as for Essentials, and Fundamentals, I know you pretend to them, but I cannot see where your Authors define how many they be, but leave them uncertain for their own advantage. As to the other branch of the Assertion, That your Church is a sound part of the Catholic Church; I must beg your Assistance herein, to inform me how a particular Church, that did voluntarily fall off from the Catholic, as yours did, and afterward was cut off by Excommunication from it, can yet continue to be a sound Member of it; this I desire you to clear up to me. You must not shuffle with me herein, and tell me ye did not fall off from it, but from its Errors; that's ridiculous: Neither that ye did not fall off from the Catholic, but only from the Roman Church; that is false; for ye then broke Communion from all Visible, Orthodox Churches, both in the West and East: According to my Authors, such Churches as yours can be no more Members of the Catholic Church, than a dead Bough may be termed part of that Tree from which 'tis separated by Excision. The Church is but one, and cannot be divided, Scindi unitas non potest, nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari divulsis laceratione visceribus in frusta discerpi, quicquid a matrice discescerit seorsim vivere & spirare non potest, substantiam salutis amittit; Cyp. de Unit. And accordingly St. Austin, Epist. 48. ad Madurenses. Videtis multos praecisos à rudice Christianae societatis, etc. de solâ figurâ originis sub Christiano nomine quasi arescentia sarmenta gloriari quas Haereses & schismata nominamus. But I find when your Party lay claim to be the Catholic Church, and would vie for extent and number with the Romanist's, than they make their false Musters, and spread their wide Lap to several Sects, only to acquire a more considerable multitude, which when compared with one another, are indeed found to be so many several Churches, distinguished not only by Nation and Climate, but by Doctrine and Points of Faith. Now tho' these be opposite Parties, of different Principles, yet to enlarge their bounds, and to boast of their greatness; they rake all those together, under the Title of Protestants, who have revolted from Rome, counting them on their side, as if the definition of a Protestant were, One that had apostatised from the Roman Church and that stands in opposition to it: And I find some Protestants to specify as much, as Dr. Willet in his Preface to his Synopsis, a Protestant is he, who professeth the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and hath renounced the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome: And Musculus in locis tit. de coenâ, I embrace all for. Brethren in the Lord, however they disagree from or amongst themselves, as long as they maintain not the Popish impieties: By this Method they patch up an Heterogenial Church, consisting of all condemned Sects, jarring with one another, as Eutychians, Nestorians, Monothelits, Sacramentarians, Lutherans, Calvenists, Hugonots, Anabaptists, with all the numerous Spawn and Increment of fruitful Error; this made Dr. Vane very ingenuously to say, That the Church hath the property of Heat, Congregare Homogenea, things of the same kind, Disgregare Heterogenea, separate things of a different nature, casting out of her Communion, all sorts of Heretics; but your Church, he says, hath the property of cold, Congregare Heterogenea, enfolding under her Name a Miscellany of different Religions, rather freezing than uniting them together; and accordingly I find Bishop Usher in a Sermon of his preached at Wansted before King James, to adopt and matriculate into his Church, Greeks, Abyssines, Egyptians, Jacobites, tho' at variance with one another, and more at odds with him, and tainted with Heresies, expressly condemned by General Councils. For the Egyptians, Aethiopians, and Abyssines, were cast out of the Church by the Council of Chalcedon, as infected with Eutychianism, holding but one Will, Nature, and Operation in Christ; much of the same Kidney, are the Armenians, Jacobites, Georgians and Copthites. The Christians under the Turk and Persian are tainted with Nestorianism, and ejected out of the Church for asserting two Persons in Christ.  
The Grecians, Muscovites, and Russians, according to Athanasius' Creed, are excluded from Salvation, for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son, on whom Mr. Rogers in his Thirty nine Articles is very Decretory, This, says he, discovereth all of them to be Impious, Erroneous from the way of Truth, which hold and affirm, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, but not from the Son, as this day the Grecians, Russians, and Muscovites maintain. It was a saying of King James, the First, That they erring about the Holy Ghost, had lost it. As for the Doctrines of Lutherans and Calvenists, I find them formerly condemned in Donatus, Aerius, Vigilantius, Xenias, Nevatus, etc.  
But now, after all this, I find, that neither Schism nor Heresy, according to the Sense of your Party, hinders one from being a Member of the Church. Thus Dr. Field in his first Book of the Church, thinks when he says, That the departure of Schismatics is not such, but that notwithstanding their Schism, they are, and remain parts of the Church of God; and Luther Serm. de Dominic says, That they are frantic, who go about to separate the Church from Heretics. This their favourable Opinion of Heretics and Schismatics made me imagine, they themselves were guilty of both, and that they did not exclude them from being Members of the Church, lest by that Action they should bar out themselves; but how a Schismatic, who goes out of the Church, or how a Heretic, who depraves its Doctrine, who has made shipwreck of his Faith, and whom we are ordered to shun and avoid, can be a Member of the Church, I cannot conjecture; so I shall keep steady to St. Hieroms saying, contra Lucif. Nulla Haeretica Congregatio potest dici Ecclesia Christi. Neither can I imagine, how Churches opposite one to another, disagreeing in weighty points, so as not to join in Communion, can be said to be Members of the same Catholic Church, which is but one Body, and has but one Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Name Church is no Name of Separation, but of Union and Symphony, says Chrysost. 1 Homil. Corinth. And accordingly St. Austin told the Donatists, who came much nearer to Catholics than you do, If our Communion be the Church of Christ, yours is not Christ's Church, for that is but one, whichsoever it be: In his first Book against them. And St. Cyprian in his Seventy sixth Epistle, If the Church were on Novatus his side, it was not with Cornelius: So careful were they to preserve the Unity of the Church. This makes them restrain the Church to a Company of Christians united together, obeying their Supreme Pastor, outwardly professing the same Faith, Communicating with the rest of the Members in Public Worship, and Participation of the Blessed Sacrament: Hence Austin in his Forty eighth Epistle to the Donatists, tells them, Nobiscum estis, you are with us in Baptism, and the Creed, etc. In ipsa Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non estis; They believed more than what you esteem as Fundamental, yet were out of the Pale of the Catholic Church. In this Church is Unity of Faith, Harmony in Doctrine, Conformity in Administration of the Sacraments, Uniformity in her Liturgy and Ceremonies all the World over. To distinguish this Church from all Heretical Sects, the Apostles in their Creed, the Ancient Fathers in their Writings gave her the Surname of Catholic: This very name seemed so emphatical to St. Austin, that he reckons it as a principal reason, next to the Succession of Popes from St. Peter, that kept him in the true Church, Cont. Epist. Manichaei, Tenet ipsum Catholicae nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas Haereses, sic ipsa Ecclesia sola obtinuit, ut cum omnes Haeretici se Catholicos dici velint, Quaerenti tamen peregrino alicui ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur nullus Haereticorum, vel Basilicam suam, vel domum audeat ostendere: From this place you may evidently see, That it was the humour of the Heretics of those Days, as well as it is now, to affect the Title of Catholic, but this was but an usurpation in them, and so 'tis with you: He, says the Greeks, called this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod per torum orbem terrarum diffunditur: And according to this sense it is true, Heretics may be called Catholics, for they are disseminated all over the World: But in his Fourth Book against Cresconius he makes this distinction betwixt a Real Catholic, and an Heretical one. Catholics, says he, are the same every where, and Heretics are different. Hence 'tis that a Lutheran will not Communicate with a Greek, nor a Greek with a Lutheran, nor a Calvinist with a Muscovite, nor an Anabaptist with an Armenian, or an Huguenot with a Georgian, & vice versa; whereas a Catholic Communicates with a Catholic in any part of the World, as Members of the same Body, and as having the same Unity of Faith, as Irenaeus affirms in his first Book C. 3. The Church spread over the whole World, having received the true belief, keeps it, and practiseth it, as if it dwelled but in one House, and had but one Soul and Heart; Neque hae quae in Germania sunt fundatae Ecclesiae, aliter credunt; neque hae quae in Iberis sunt, neque hae quae in Celtis, neque hae quae in Oriente Aegypto & Lybia: Thus it was at first, when Christian Churches were united and untainted with Heresy; for the Apostles taught the self same Doctrine wherever they went; and all those various Churches seated in divers Kingdoms and Regions differed only in Situation, not in Doctrine: Hence from their Unity of Faith, they may be called One Church, as St. Chrysost. in his Comments on first Corinth. affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; There aught to be but one Church in the World, although it be divided into many places. Now 'tis evident, that of all Orthodox Churches, an Union of which constitutes the Catholic, Rome as being the See of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, was the chief; and upon that account though Jerusalem and Antioch were somewhat before her in time, she was before them in Dignity: Hence by Irenaeus she is called the Greatest and most Glorious; by St. Cyprian, the Principle Church; and St. Austin says, 'tis Arrogancy to deny her the Primacy; and that she had obtained the Primacy, frustra Haereticis latrantibus. Hence it is that by way of Eminency, she is called the Catholic Church, including all the latitude of her Communion, of which she is the Centre, the Mother, the Mistress, the Radix & Matrix: Hence 'tis that the Fathers promiscuously use Catholic and Roman, as Synonima's, as I shall hereafter demonstrate out of them.   

CHAP. III. Concerning the Respect which Catholics pay to Images.  
I Shall next employ myself in taking a Prospect of those Points, for maintaining which, you would prove Rome notoriously guilty of Paternal Schism; and this I do the more willingly, because you stand highly guilty of a false Representing them. The First is Image-Worship (as you phrase it) which you have improved, and sublimated to that height as to make it pass for Idolatry: This is done to render yourselves acceptable, and us odious to the Populace, as Violators of the first Commandment. 'Tis but rendering Pesel (which properly signifies Sculptile) to be an Image, and then boldly affirming us Idolators; to bring all the places in Scripture and Fathers against the Idolatry of the Gentiles, and the business is done: But those places are indeed nothing to your purpose, they only importing a Prohibition of giving Sovereign Honour due to God, to an Idol; whereas you are to prove out of Scripture, That 'tis unlawful to give a Relative Honour to the Picture of Christ for his sake: But by this Action, you do not only show yourself defamatory, but ungrateful to the Roman Church, which, when this Nation lay really in the Pollutions of Idolatry, took compassion of us, and by planting the Gospel here, rescued us from that Calamitous Condition. This confounding Image-worship with Idolatry, is certainly, a most fraudulent and malicious Method, they being quite different things; the one is an Honorary, Relative Respect to the thing represented, which is Sacred: But the other is a Worshipping a Creature, an Idol, a Devil, or false God, in some dark Representation, giving it Divine, Incommunicable Attributes, and in the Imagination exercising supreme Devotion to it; for to those Idols, by Magical Conjuration they annexed an Evil Spirit to do Wonders, and thereby to extort Divine Worship from the cheated People; hence they are often called Gods; as in the Fifth of Daniel they prayed their Gods of Silver, Brass, Iron, Wood, Stone. Now to ascribe this heinous Sin to the Catholic Church is highly injurious, Idolatry being the blackest Sin a Church can be spotted with; for it doth not only thereby cease to be a true Christian Church, but it becomes worse than a Jewish Synagogue; and I had rather turn Jew or Turk than Idolater. There is no Question, but that Idolatry is a sufficient excuse for any one to fall off from a Church that is tainted with it: But if this were the reason of your falling off from Rome, the pretence was malicious and forged; and Mr. Thorndike, who well knew what Idolatry was, will tell you in his Just weight, Cap. primo, his Opinion herein, whose words are these, Should the Church of England declare that the change, which we call Reformation, is grounded upon this supposition, I must then acknowledge that we are Schismatics.  
But I shall now make a short Discussion of this Point, according to the Definition of the Council of Trent, which I find to take all care imaginable to obviate any accusation herein; the Words being as so many Characters, to distinguish the respect paid to an Image, from Idolatry. First, the Council thinks fit, Imagines Christi Deiparae Virgins & aliorum Sanctorum in Templis praesertim habendas & retinendas eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam; but then by disclaiming any Divinity to be in them, the Council acquits us of Idolatry in the following words, Non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit habenda veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa quae illa repraesentant, etc. Now as to the first part of the Council concerning retaining Images in Churches, this was anciently practised long before that Council. Gregory Nazianzen in his Forty ninth Epistle to Olymp. makes mention of Images in the Church of Diocesarea. Basil in his Oration of Barlaam pointeth to his Image which stood in the Church. Greg. Nyssen in his Oration of Theod. speaks of a Church so beatified with Images, that it shown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some pleasant and flowery Meadows. Nicephorus affirms, that Pulcheria the Empress built a Church at Constant. and placed therein a Picture of our Blessed Lady, which Eudocia sent her from Jerusalem. Tertull. in his Second Book de Pudicitia, witnesseth, that the Image of Christ in form of a Shepherd, carrying a Sheep on his Shoulders, was engraven on the Chalices used in the Church. August. de consens. Evang. witnesseth, that in his time Christ was to be seen in many places painted between St. Peter and Paul. Eusebius in his Seventh Book of his Ecclesias. History, makes mention of a Brazen Statue of Christ at Caesarea Philippi, thought to be erected by the Haemaroissa, cured by him; this Statue he declares to have continued to his days, and that he had seen it. Sozomen adds, That when Julian the Apostate out of spite against our Saviour, caused it to be cast down, and his own set up in the place, that there came miraculously Fire from Heaven which consumed julian's; Christ by this avenging the affront offered his Statue by that Insolent Apostate, as much as if it had been done to his Person: And the same Author tells us, That when Christ's Image was thrown down, and broken in pieces, the Christians gathered up its fragments, and laid them up in the Church, which certainly was in Honour to the Prototype.  
The other part of the words of the Council is, That those Images should have their due Honour and Veneration. It cannot be denied but that an Image is capable of Honour, and of Contempt; and it naturally flows, that those that hate the Party represented by the Picture, will hate the Picture; and those that love the Party, will respect the Picture. Now this respect which Catholics out of love to the Persons represented by them, have for Pictures, is very slanderously called by you Idolatry; whereas that consists in forsaking the true God, and Worshipping either real Devils, or false Gods; so those Idols stood in opposition to the true God, as ' 'tis. 1 Kings 18. 21. If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal be God, follow him. And 'tis well known, that the Jews, as often as they fell to Idolatry, always forsook the God of Israel. Then the Council gives the Reason why they should be Honoured. Quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad Prototypum. This is exactly what St. Basil affirms, de Spiritu Sancto, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype. And accordingly Athanasius 4 Serm. con. Arrianos', says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He that worships the King's Image, in that worshippeth the King. For Images by imagination, stand for the Prototype; and what is done by way of Honour to the Image, is mentally done to the Person: So the Honour addressed them is Relative, for they be not honoured because they be Pictures, but because they represent such persons, so the respect is determined to the Party represented: Abstracted from the Prototype they are not capable of Honor. A Civil Honour is due to the Picture of a King of our Ancestors, and nigh Relations, and to those we love. We resent any ignominy offered them, and naturally conceive indignation thereat. A Religious Honour is due to the Pictures of Christ, his Holy Apostles and Saints; the Respect shown them redounding to the Original, and ultimately terminating on it, as 'tis in the Second Nicene Council, Act 7.  per hanc Imaginum pictarum inspectionem, omnes qui contemplantur ad Prototypi memoriam recordationem desideriumque veniant, illisque salutationem, & honorariam adorationem exhibeant. According to Niceph. Xenaias, a Persian by Birth, a Slave by Fortune; one of an Audacious Spirit, and Impudent Mouth, was the first that dared to affirm, That the Image of Christ and of the Saints were not to be reverenced. Now when the word Worship or Adoration is applied, it does really amount to no more than an honorary Respect and Reverence, a Relative, Inferior Honour: We do not take those words in that Sense, as the Tribute of Honour due to God, as you injuriously asperse us with, this we abhor; for in that Sense we Adore and Worship only the incomprehensible Deity, that Supreme Monarch who has Sovereign Dominion over all, renouncing all other Divine Adoration.  
Now, as to the word Adoration (of which you make great advantage against us with the Communality) you must understand, that it does not always signify Divine or Religious Worship, but it has likewise an inferior Sense, importing Reverence, Respect either of Body or Mind, communicable to Creatures according to their Dignities; sometimes any bowing the Body in sign of Reverence, as may be proved by many places in Scripture, where Creatures are said to be adored; and so to Deserving, Eminent, Worshipful Men, we may be said to give Worship, when we Honour and Respect them by bowing, or by any other outward gesture, according to the custom of the Country.  
Now, as to the Act of worship, that consists of two Parts; the Exterior sign is Kneeling, the Interior is the Affection directed to what we Worship; and indeed, that is the main thing; for as to the Exterior, that we grant to Persons of several qualities (as well as to God) as to our King, our Bishop, and Parents; but this is done with different Apprehensions and Affections; we worship God as our Creator in a more sublime and eminent manner; others in a lower degree. This may be gathered out of the Fathers, who take the word in different acceptations, sometimes in the more principal and losty Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Divine Worship, Supreme Honour due to God only, as in Epiphanius, Heresy 79. Sat in honore Maria, Deus adoretur: And Hierom in his 53 Epist. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoremus; yet sometimes they take it in an inferior Sense, and say other things besides God are to be Adored, as in August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 10. c. 4. Homines, si multum eis addatur, etiam adorandi: and Cyr. Alexand. Hom. de Deipara, Crux adoratur toto orbe torrarum. Accordingly Lactantius, Flecte genu, Lignumque Crucis venerabile adora. And St. Hierom, Epist. 17. says, Baptistae cineres adorate. St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration on Theodosius praises the Empress Helena for setting the Cross upon the Crown of Kings, that it might be adored in them; Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite Regum levavit, locavit, ut Crux Christi in Regibus adoretur: And St. Hierom in Epitaph. Paulae, reports of her, that having at Jerusalem found out the Cross upon which Christ suffered, she adored it, as if she even had seen our Saviour hanging on it. St. Chrysost. is very clear herein, in several places, but more especially in his Hom. de Adorat. Crucis. That the Primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Cross, may be proved out of Tertullian, in his Apology, where he acknowledges, that the Heathens took notice of it, and accused them as Crucis Religiosos. This double acceptation of the word Adoration, was well known to Mr. Thorndike, who affirms the words Adoration, Worship, Respect and Reverence to be equivocal, and the cause of this Equivocation to be for want of words to signify those conceptions which flow not from Common Sense; and from this Equivocation in those words the greatest part of the difficulties which occur, take their rise; So you may see how deceitfully you deal by us herein, always taking the words Adore, Worship, as importing Supreme Honour to God, and then falsely, accusing us of giving God's Honour to a Creature or Image, which we detest with a greater abhorrency than yourself.  
The other thing the Council took care in, not to leave the least umbrage of suspicion of Idolatry to any Rational Man, is, that they did disown any Virtue or Divinity to be in them; that upon that account they should be respected, or that they should be requested any thing, or any trust reposed in them, as the Gentiles did, etc. and this puts me in mind of what Gregory, several hundred Years before the Council wrote, in his Seventh Book of his Epistles to Secundinus, who it seems had desired Gregory to send him some Pictures, which he did, and likewise instructs him in the right use of them, agreeable to the Council, Scio quidem quod Imaginem Salvatoris nostri, non ideo petis, ut quasi Deum colas, sed ut ad recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas cujus te imaginem videre desideras; & nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem, ante illam prosternimur, sed illum adoremus quem per imaginem, aut natum aut passum, sed in Throno sedentem recordamur.   

CHAP. IU. Of Transubstantiation.  
THe next Point by which you would prove Rome guilty of Schism, is Transubstantiation, which you have lewdly abused, and injuriously represented; but I am afraid you are not so much offended at the word as at the meaning of it: As to the word, the Church was pleased to make use of it, as fit and proper to declare the change of the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ. Quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat, As the Lateran Council says Canone Secundo: And accordingly the Council of Trent, Quae conversio convenienter & proprie à S. Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio appellatur. The Council defines not the word to be of Faith, but makes use of it as a fit word, expressive of their Sense; so that if you can tell me a more proper one than this, I shall not quarrel with you about it. For names of words speaking in their rigour, are not Objects of Faith; as Athanasius shows in his Reconciliation of the Verbal Controversy of Person and Hypostasis, but the Matter and Sense therein couched. As to the newness of the word, which is often objected, tho' it was never in Latin publicly authorised before the Council of Lateran; yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be proved to be very ancient, and the thing thereby signified, seems as old as Christ's celebration of his Supper: For a Point of Faith may be elder in itself than the Council that defines it. The Consubstantiality of the Son and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost must be admitted to be elder than the Council of Nice and Constantinople that defined them. The Conciliary Definition being generally occasioned by the emergency of Heretical Opinions, contrary to the Sense of the Church, which had they not arose, the Church had never been necessitated to a more Explicit Declaration: Thus it happened here. Sundry monstrous Opinions being broached about the Blessed Sacrament, the Church was obliged to intervene with her unerring determinations, establishing the Truth, and dispelling Error. Now tho' this Article was always in itself of the substance of Faith; and tho' the thing signified by the new term was always held as a Divine Truth, yet it was not obliging under that notion till the Solemn Declaration of the Church, Quae veritas etsi prius erat de fide, non tamen erat prius tantum declarata, as Scotus says. Now that the Church has power to coin a new word for the Elucidating Truth, and that she hath made use of this Power, is clear by the Council of Nice, which to declare Christ's Consubstantiality with the Father, found out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and by the Council of Ephesus, which to express the Mystery of Christ's Divine Incarnation made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deipara. That the Father's long before the Council of Lateran and Trent did believe a Real change after the consecratory words, is most evident, and accordingly to express their belief of a Real Conversion, they make use of Real Changes mentioned in Scripture; as of Aaron's Rod into a Serpent, Water into Wine. Hence the Greek Fathers call this mutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, affirming after the Consecration the Symbols to be changed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greek words importing Transelementation, Transfaction, Transmutation, Transfiguration. Thus St. Ambrose, Lib. 4. de fide, Per Sacrae Orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur & sanguinem; and Lib. 4. de Sacramento, Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane, fit caro Christi; non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod jam corpus est Christi; ipse dixit & factum est. And again, Sermo Christi qui poterit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant?  
And accordingly George Nyssen in orat. catechet. Recte Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credo transmutari. And Cyril Hieros. in his Catech. Mist. says, Panis & Vinum Eucharistiae ante sacram invocationem adorandae Trinitatis Panis erat & Vinum merum, peractâ invocatione Panis fit corpus Christi, Vinum Sanguis Christi. And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bread is changed into the very Body of Christ.  
Now that we might not disbelieve this stupendous change, because 'tis supernatural, he tells us how it is effected, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This Bread is changed into the Flesh of our Lord by arcane words, by the Mystical Bendiction, by the accession of the Holy Ghost, on John 6. St. Chrysost. in his 83 Hom. on Matt. says, That this change is not a work of Human Power, but Christ himself performs it: He Sanctifies and Transmutes it: That Christ, who as soon as he willed or spoke a thing, by his Omnipotency effected it; as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will, the Leper was cleansed; as soon as he said Lazare exi foris, he caused and enabled him to come forth; as soon as he Commanded the Devils to dislodge out of the Demoniacs, he drove them out; as soon as he ordered the Winds to hold their Breath, he caused a Calm; as soon as he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he raised the Virgin to Life. The same Almighty Jesus, at his last Supper having taken Bread into his Hands, and having said, Hoc est Corpus meum, did by virtue and energy of those Operative, Divine Words, incomprehensively, ineffably change and transelement it into his Body, and the like concerning the Wine. This adorable Mystery I shall not in the least question, because I cannot comprehend it, that is, to incur Nicodemus his Error, neither will I disbelieve it, because 'tis above the strength of Nature, that was the weakness of Zaoharias, but with the Blessed Virgin, I will rely on the word of God, who neither can deceive, nor be deceived. Fiat secundum verbum tuum, firmly without any diffidence by a generous and vivid Faith, acquiescing in the veracity of Christ his words. Cum Christus ipse affirmet ac dicat, hoc est corpus meum, quis deinceps audeat dubitare? ac eodem dicente, hic est Sanguis meus, quis dubitet ac dicat non esse Sanguinem? Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum, quod est Sanguini propinquum; & non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutâsset? Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus & Sangninem sumamus; nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus; sub specie Vini, Sanguis, says St. Cyril in his Mystag. Catechism: Which words are as clear for Transubstantiation as any thing in the Council of Lateran or Trent.  
Now, as I do undoubtedly believe, that (when Christ spoke these words) they had their effect as soon as they were uttered, and for this I have St. Chrysost. Authority, who affirms, That Christ, when he said this is my Body, made it his Body: So with the same Father, I do believe, when a lawful Priest of the Catholic Church pronounces the same Consecratory words, that they have the same effect. Sacra ipsa oblatio, sive illum Petrus sive Paulus, sive cujusvis meriti sacerdos offerat, eadem est quam dedit Christus Discipulis; quamque sacerdotes modo conficiunt nihil habet ista quam illa minus: cur id? quia non sanctificant homines, sed Christus qui illam antea sacraverat, in his 2. Hom. on 2 Epist. Timothy.  
I know this Doctrine is much opposed by our Adversaries, and they fancy that we are sufficiently confuted by having it tried at the Tribunal of our Senses; but this is not at all prevalent with me; for Christ never intended, that this supernatural change should be subjected to our External Senses; for had it been visible to them, it could not have been matter of Faith, which is properly argumentum rerum non apparentium.  
It is observable, that Christ, before he wrought this invisible Miracle, had done many visible ones, to convince his Disciples of his Divine Power; they having imbibed that belief, could never rationally doubt of his Veracity, or Ability in performance of what he had said, knowing him to be Omnipotent: Ipse Dominus testificatur nobis quod Corpus suum accipiamus & sanguinem, quid debemus de ejus fide & testificatione dubitare? says St. Ambrose. Christ then willing to exercise their and our Faith in this Mystery, and at the same time to free us from eating Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper Species, which we naturally abhor, was pleased to give us them Clothed, Apparelled under another Species of Bread and Wine. Quod occulis apparet species sunt visibles panis & vini, quod sub speciebus iisdem fides nostra non sensus aut ratio comprehendit, id verum Christi corpus. And accordingly Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore God indulgently condescends to us, and preserves the Species of Bread and Wine, but transelements them into the strength of his Flesh and Blood.  
There is no question but that the Fathers were Men of Sense, and as acute and subtle Persons as any of our Adversaries; yet in judging of this Mystery, they admitted not their Senses as Umpires, Credamus ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui & cogitationi absurdum esse videtur quod dicit; superat & sensum & rationem nostram sermo ipsius; verba Domini falsa esse nequeunt; sensus noster saepe fallitur; quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est Corpus meum, nulla teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus, says St. Chrysostom in his 60 Orat. ad Pop. Antioch; and some of them advise us not to judge of this great Mystery, either by our taste, or by our sight, being of an higher nature than to have such an inquest to sit on't. Non est panis etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse corpus Christi & vinum quod a nobis conspicitur, tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur, non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse, says St. Cyril in his Catech. St. Ambrose raiseth a Question for you, but then he solves it, Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video, sed habet similitudinem, ut nullus horror sit cruoris, Lib. 4. Sacrament. And in like manner Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But why does it seem to us not to be Flesh, but Bread, that we should not loathe the eating of it: And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It seems unto us to be Bread, but 'tis Flesh indeed. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis changed by an ineffable energy, tho' it seems to us to be Bread.  
Now the high abuse you offer Catholics in this Point, is by representing our belief herein after a Gross, Carnal, Capharnaical meaning, impressing those of your Party with the same false Ideas concerning us, as the Heathens conceived against the Primitive Christians, as if we were a Barbarous Inhuman sort of Cannibals, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Carnivorous and Blood drinkers, whereas our Apprehensions of Christ's Body in the Blessed Eucharist are of a quite different nature from the gross conceptions of those People; they, as St. Austin affirms in his 27. Tract. on St. John understood such Flesh, Quo modo in cadavere dilaniatur in macello venditur, non quo modo spiritu vegetatur, non sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, Christus dat suam manducandam carnem. So you are to understand, that tho' we do believe a real change, as looking on the words uttered by Christ to be absolutely true, yet withal we believe no gross change in a Natural way, but confess it to be invisible, Inexplicable, Mystical and Sacramental. The words seem very plain, and easily enough performed, if considered as the words of an Omnipotent God; the only obstacle lies in our incredulity and high conceit of our Natural Parts, and our foolish fondness of reasoning about matters above Reason: For to this incomprehensible Mystery, sola fide metiendum, adorandum magis quam investigandum, we must surrender the Forts of our frail Apprehensions, to this we must veil the Fasces of our Judgements, and dethroning our usurping Understanding, subjugate it to the Obedience of Faith, knowing it to be too sublime for flagging Reason to soar to, tho' its Wings were imped with Angelical Plumes: Here we must in a more especial manner beware of Philosophy receiving this Blessed Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as believing Fishermen, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Critical Disputants, not fight against it with silly Arguments drawn from the quiver of Impotent Nature, or from our weak Imaginations, like those foolish Persons, who fancied the Bodies of Men in Heaven were like those on Earth; whereas our Saviour informed them better, and told them, they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like the Angels, declaring the original of their Error to be because they neither knew the Scripture, nor the Power of God. That Omnipotent Power which could subtract Weight from heavy things, enabling St. Peter to walk on the moist back of the Sea; that could make its own Body invisible to the Jews; that could make bright and radiant things not to shine, as his own Body after the Resurrection; which tho' it were then more Fulgid than the Sun, yet darted no Rays. That Power, which as it made Nature, presides over it, divesting Vipers of their Poison, to preserve St. Paul; and Water of its fluidness, as those of Jordan, and rapid flames of their scorching, as those of the Babilonish Furnace, to question and disbelieve the Operations of this Power, because our Reason cannot comprehend them, is not only prodigious Pride in us, but it is the highest indignity that can be offered our Saviour. But what shall we think of those who call in their External Senses as Judges herein, and in a matter of Faith appeal to their Eyes, as if those Organs, which cannot see the Wind which is a Natural Substance, should be able to discern an invisible Mystery of Faith, a Supernatural, Glorified, Spiritual Body. 'Tis impossible the Senses should perceive any thing here, this Mystery is too fine and rare for Mortal Eyes; nothing to them can seem changed, the Symbols appearing the same. Faith only with the piercing Rays of her more than Aquiline Eyes, assisted by the interposition of a Divine Authority, penetrating the Veil of the Elements, discovers Christ really present there.  
This stupendous and adorable presence of our Saviour, I find Catholic Authors to describe, not to be according to his natural way of Corporeal Existence; that is, with Extension of Parts in order to place, as if one part were here and another part there; but to be after a supernatural way, without locality, being one and the same in many places, and whole in every part and portion of the Symbols, without the Accidents of the Body, as Quantity or Figure; being neither thick nor big as to Occupation of place, not as exposed to the External Senses, or obnoxious to Corporeal Contingencies, but as invisible, imperceptible, impassable: After this manner, Spirits in their substances are said to be. The Body of Christ here is Spiritual not Sensual, as St. Paul avers of our Bodies after the Resurrection; 'tis sown a Sensual Body, but risen a Spiritual Body: The Quality of these Bodies are different in reference to Clarity, Agility, and Impassibility, but the Substance perisheth not (which made Job say, he should see God with these Eyes:) Thus the latter Adam is called A quickening Spirit, and as such, he is really in the Sacrament: So that, in fine, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Flesh that is to be eaten, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spiritual Food, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Mystical Banquet.   

CHAP. V Of Communion in one kind.  
THe third Point by which you would prove the Roman Church guilty of Schism, is Communion in one kind. This is generally termed by you and yours, but an half Communion, and a Violation of Christ's Institution; and we are herein accused by you, as Sacrilegious against God, Injurious to Men, Robbing the Church of Christ's precious Blood, by giving the People a lame imperfect Sacrament, instead of an entire, whole one: This Accusation runs very high, but I will see how just it is.  
That Christ did institute the Blessed Sacrament in both kinds, is readily granted; but that he commanded it should be always taken in both kinds, as necessary to the compliment of it, is not where to be found; and accordingly, in this case, we have the example of Christ himself, who is a sufficient warrant, for he having in his last Supper instituted it under both kinds, gave it to his Disciples at Emaus, Luke 24. but under one, where the Text says, That they knew Jesus in breaking of Bread: Here is no mention of Wine at all, but of Bread only; and this place is Interpreted by the Fathers, of the Administration of the Blessed Eucharist. August. Lib. 3. de consensu Evang. says, Christ did permit they should not know him, Vsque ad Sacramentum Panis. And Theoph. on that place says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Eyes of those that did partake of Consecrated Bread were opened so as to know him; for the Flesh of our Lord has great and unspeakable Power. This was likewise originally practised by the Apostles. In the Second of the Acts we find, that the 3000 Baptised were persevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and in the Communication of breaking Bread: Here likewise is no mention of Wine. And in the Twentieth of the Acts, we find, at Troas, when St. Paul made his long Harangue, that the Apostles were gathered together on the first day of the Week to break Bread: Here is likewise a deep silence of the Cup. This breaking of the Bread is likewise Interpreted by St. Austin of the Sacrament, in his Epist. 86. ad Casulanum, where speaking of St. Paul, he says, Eadem Nocte fracturus Panem sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi, produxit sermonem ad medium Noctis, ut post Sacramenta celebrata, etc. Thus 'tis apparent, that tho' Christ did Institute it in both kinds, it was no violation of this his Constitution to Minister it in one; for this there be Precedents in the same Scripture which mentions both Species.  
The next thing to be considered, is, whether Communication under one kind be an Imperfect, Lame Communion? Herein, upon consulting the Holy Writ, I find as much ascribed to one kind as to both; sometimes it attributing Salvation to the Bread and Wine, sometimes to the Bread only: Thus in the Sixth of John, the same Christ, who says, Nisi manducaveritis Carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ejus Sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, says likewise in the same Chapter as much of the Bread alone. Si quis manducaverit ex hoc Pane, vivet in aeternum. He that says, Qui manducat meam Carnem, & bibit meum Sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, says of the Bread only, Panis quem ego dabo, Caro mea est pro mundi salute. He that says, Qui manducat meam Carnem, & bibit meum Sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in illo, says likewise, Qui manducat hunc Panem, vivet in aeternum: By these places it is evident, that Christ ascribes to the Bread alone everlasting Life and Salvation of the World, which is a sufficient proof, that it is no imperfect Communion, no Soul desiring more than that: It remains then, that it appears not by the Scripture, that the reception of Christ under the Species of Bread only, is a Defective, Incomplete Communion, it being visible from thence, that Christ, who gave the Sacrament but twice, gave it in one of those two times in Bread only; and the Apostles after him are found to Communicate without any mention of Wine.  
From the Scripture I shall have recourse to Councils for my fuller satisfaction (they being the most fit Interpreters of it.)  
Totus Christus continetur sub specie Panis, & totus sub specie Vini, sub qualibet quoque parte consecratae hostiae, & Vini consecrati separatione facta totus est Christus; says the great Council of Florence, consisting of Greeks and Armenians, as well as of those Bishops of the West.  
Firmissime credendum sit, & nullatenus dubitandum, integrum Christi Corpus & Sanguinem, tam sub specie Panis, quam sub specie Vini veraciter contineri. Consilium Constans. Sess. 13.  
Nec ullatenus ambigendum est, quod non sub specie Panis Caro tantum, nec sub specie Vini Sanguis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integre totus Christus. Concilium Basil. Sess. 30.  
And accordingly the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. says: Sub alterâ tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi verissimum est tantum sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque contineri; and in Sess. 13. Totus enim, & integer Christus sub specie Panis, & sub quavis speciei parte, totus item sub Vini specie, & sub ejus partibus existit.  
The Church is very clear in expressing her Sense herein, by the Mouth of these unanimous Councils; declaring, that in one kind is contained the whole Substance, Essence, and Parts of the Sacrament, either part having Christum totum & integrum, secundum Divinam humanamque naturam; for Bread and Wine are not the two integral parts of the Sacrament, our Saviour instituting the whole Sacrament both in Bread and Wine, as two distinct, entire matters, not as integral parts thereof; so the Flesh cannot be participated without the concomitance of the Blood, that being not disjoined from it; neither can the Blood be taken apart without the Body, that being contained in it; neither can there be a participation of either without the Soul and Divinity, by reason of the inseparable Hypostatick Union.  
The next thing I shall consider, is, whether the Laity be by any Divine Precept, Commanded to participate of the Cup. The Council of Trent determinates it in the Negative, Sess. 21. Nullo Divino Praecepto Laicos & Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utrâque specie sumendum: Here they likewise exempt Clericos non conficientes, from that obligation which I find to be according to the Council of Basil. Sess. 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem Divinarum Scripturarum Sacrorum Canonum, etc. they thus affirm, Clerici communicantes & non conficientes, non adstringuntur ex Divino Praecepto ad suscipiendum sub utraque specie Sacrum Eucharistiae Sacramentum. The Priest Conficient is obliged to the participation of both Species; for as the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was performed by a distinct effusion of Blood; so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Incruentum Sacrificium upon the Altar, which is a Commemoration and Representation of that aught to be performed by a distinction of Symbols, this being not only a Sacrament, but a Commemorative Sacrifice representative of the Bloody Passion.  
The following matter to be weighed, is whether the Laity be injured or robbed of any thing hereby: The Council of Trent says no. Nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem eos defraudari qui unam speciem solum accipiunt: This follows upon Christ's being entire, and whole in each Species, as Canisius affirms, Vbi Christus totus, & integer sumitur illic deesse non potest integer fructus & efficax gratia Sacramenti tanti. Laici nullâ utilitate fraudantur, sive rem in Sacramento contentam, Christum scilicet Deum, & Hominem spectas; sive fructum & gratiam quae Eucharistiam sumentibus ad animarum salutem donatur, quaeras; sed tantum hi sub alterâ accipiunt, quantum sub utrâque, si liceret, essent specie percepturi: So herein they cannot be injured unless you can prove the Body and Blood of Christ to be separated; and that he that receives him under the form of Bread, receives his Body only, and of Wine, his Blood only.  
As for those of the Ancient Church, had they believed that Christ so instituted the Blessed Sacrament, as that he would not have one part taken without the other, and looked on the usage of the Cup as of the Essence of the Sacrament, necessary to Salvation, they would not have Communicated under one Species only, as it is apparent they did; and the custom hereof is so ancient, that its Cradle and beginning cannot be defined. It was practised in the time of Persecution in Domestic Communions, in which the Eucharist was delivered to the Faithful under one Form, to be carried home; as may be proved out of Tertull. Lib. 2. ad Vxorem. Cyprian Lib. 1. de Lapsis. Ambros. Orat in the Death of his Brother Satyrus. It was given to Children, Sick People, and Travellers in one kind. And that they did so in their Churches, is highly probable by the Manicheans, hiding and lurking amongst them, who could never have found shelter and opportunity of Communicating with Catholics had the use of the Cup been frequent, they being a sort of Heretics, who by the Principles of their Religion would not drink Wine, abhorring it as a thing unlawful to be drunk, as a Creature of the Devil, as Fel Draconis; and so superstitiously abstaining from the Chalice; in detestation of which Heresy, the Church Commanded Communion in both kinds, not as if the other were either unlawful or imperfect, but for the detection of those Heretics, pursuant to their Exclusion from Catholic Societies: At that time the Bishops, to crush and extirpate that Heresy, highly extolled and commended the use of the Chalice; but that Error being extinct, and in process of time, another Heresy arising against the Essential Integrity of Christ's Body under either kind; as also, avouching the absolute indispensable necessity of both, the Church began universally to practice Communion under one kind; and to confute this Error, did not only declare, and publish the Truth by her Decrees and Definitions, but likewise by her Practice; well knowing, that as it was not unlawful in its self to Communicate under both sorts; so it was likewise not necessary, but in its own nature indifferent, and so consequently determinable to one or both kinds, according to the Discretion of the Church, the Precinct and Line of whose Power extendeth itself to things Adiaphorous; for things absolutely Commanded Man cannot forbid, nor Command things absolutely forbidden. This thing being thus of a middle nature, was as such within the territory of the Churches Legislative Power, which according to the differences of Place, Time, and Persons, hath power to enjoin both, or command but one, as the juncture of Affairs may be, and the benefit of the Church may require; and upon these accounts the Church may restore the Cup again, having Power to dispense in this Point of Discipline, according as may be most advantageous to its Peace and Unity; and accordingly as a tender Mother for quietness sake, she restored the Cup to the Bohemians, and there is no question but that she would have granted it you upon that account, had it been requested before your Revolt, rather than see you perishing in Damnable Schism. Now that the Church has this Power is acknowledged by the Council of Basil Sess. 30. Ecclesia quae regitur Spiritu veritatis, etc. ordinare habet quomodo ipsis non conficientibus ministretur, prout pro reverentia ipsius Sacramenti & salute fidelium viderit expedire; and accordingly the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. Declarat Synodus hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, ut in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantia ea statueret, vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum, temporum, locorum varietate magis expedire judicaret: Hence 'tis that the Church varied from the first institution in reference to time, which was then after Supper, whereas 'tis now taken fasting, and before Dinner; so I believe, that Christ did not strictly tie us up to the first institution, but left it to the discretion of the Apostles (who afterward referred it to the Judgement of the Succeeding Church;) this seems to be St. Augustine's Sense of it, Non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat servaret hunc locum, 118 Epist. ad Januarium; and certainly 'tis more fit that this Power should be lodged in the Hands of the Church, than committed to the Arbitrement of Private Persons; and you had better, herein have acquiesced in her Determinations than in your own Elections; for what have you gained by extorting this Cup, but instead of a Cup of Salvation, a baneful Potion, your departure and Schism from the Church, tainting your very Sacraments, and poisoning the very Springs of your Holy Actions, Omnia Sacramenta Christi non ad salutem, sed ad judicium habentur sine charitate unitatis, August. Lib. 3. Con. Literas Petil. Neque sides, neque Sacramenta ullis nisi persistentibus in Ecclesiae unitate sunt salutaria. De Vnit. Eccles. Quid prodest homini, vel sana fides, vel sanum fortasse fidei Sacramentum, ubi lethali vulnere Schismatis perempta est sanitas Charitatis? De Baptismo con. Donat. Lib. primo.   

CHAP. VI Concerning Public Prayers in Latin, and of several other Points.  
THe Fourth Point by which you would prove the Roman Church guilty of Paternal Schism, is, her Public Prayers in Latin. This Point is highly opposed, and fancied to be against the Word of God, as contrary to the Sense of the 1 Corinth. 14. which is generally brought against it, and fully believed by your Flock; tho' if rightly understood, nothing to the purpose; for this place does not reprove the Practice of the Roman Church in having her Liturgy in Latin, but prohibits Extemporary Prayers in Public Meetings in an unknown Tongue, according to the Inspired infused Devotion of the Speaker: Here is not a Word concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Common Liturgy (which hath set known Offices for every Day); If there were, it would be an admirable place for you to confute fanatics, and to establish your Common-Prayer against Sectaries. I know no reason why the Western Church should not have the liberty to make use of the Latin in her Religious Worship, (which is her Sacred and Learned Language, and in her extent the most generally known) as well as the Jews use the Hebrew, or the Eastern Churches the Greek, which, altho' consisting of several Nations that speak Languages as much different from Greek as ours is from Latin: Nay, altho' the Grecians have lost their own Language, which is now no more resemblant to the Learned Greek, than French is to Latin; yet they retain their Liturgy unalter'd in the pure Language of Chrysostom, not understood but by the Learned. St. Hierom in his Preface in Paralip. says, That in those Days all those Churches were served in Greek, using Basil's Liturgy. And Alexander Ross will tell you in his Review of Religion, That the Copthies, Jacobites, Georgians, Circassians, and others, to whom you will give the Right-hand of fellowship, use not their vulgar Language, but an unknown Tongue to the Vulgar in their Divine Service. Now you must understand, that it is no Position of the Catholic Church, that the Public Service should be in an unknown Tongue; but it being Composed at first, ever since the Apostles days in Latin in the Western Church, the Church did not think it expedient, that it should be turned into the Vulgar Barbarous Language of every Nation. This was not England's case alone, but France, Spain, Germany, Poland, etc. fared no otherwise; nay most, part of the World, according to St. August. in his Book de verâ Religione. Quotidie per orbem universum humanum genus unâ pene voce respondet sursum corda se habere ad Deum. And that the Divine Service was in Africa performed in the Latin, and not in the Punic Language, is evidently to be proved out of the same Father in his Second Book de Doctrina Christ. and in his Exposition on Psal. 123. But if you had a mind to quarrel with the Church for this, it might have been begun several hundred Years past; for it can be proved, that this Nation used Latin in her Public Service above Nine hundred Years ago, as is evident out of the Council of Cloves Hoviae, under Archbishop Cuthbert. But that which gives me full satisfaction herein, is, that our Apostle St. Austin, who made us Christians, taught us to serve God in that Language; and this seems not to be only out of high respect to God Almighty, to serve him in Public Liturgies, not in the Common, Profane, Vulgar Tongue, but in the most Pure, Sacred Language; but it seems likewise to denote Unity, that the Church which is united in the same Faith should join as much as possible in the same Language; by this means any one of her Communion may join in her Liturgy in any part of the Jurisdiction of the Western Church, a German if in Italy, a Frenchman if in Poland, an Englishman if in Spain, etc. Neither are the People so ignorant of these Prayers as you would persuade your Party; for the Liturgy having set Offices for every day, and being in one set Language; they by virtue of their Catechisms, Manuals, Prayers and Psalters in the Vulgar Tongue, (where the Prayers used by the Church, are found, and likewise Psalms and Hymns proper to every day) have several other Books Expounding the Church's Service to the meanest capacity: Besides the Priests are very solicitous herein, assisting them by their private Instructions, so that the Sense of the Church's Liturgy is well understood, even by Women and Persons of ordinary Capacity. But this Practice of the Church, in having her Liturgy in Latin, being no Article of Belief, but rather a Point of Church Discipline, and as such, not indispensable, but changeable (whereas Articles of Faith are unalterable) you, who knew 'twas in the Power of the Church to gratify you herein, should have fairly requested it before you made the breach, and took upon you to tamper with Articles of Faith before your expelling and deposing your Spiritual Guides. It may be, the Church, to prevent a greater inconvenience might have humoured you, condescending to what might have seemed most expedient; for long ago it was permitted to other Nations in her Communion, as to the Sclavonians by Pope John the Eighth, and to the Chineses by Paul the Fifth, to make use of their own Languages in their Divine Worship; the Church does not hold it as unlawful, but as not expedient every where to celebrate in the Vulgar Tongue, as she declares in the Council of Trent.  
The Fifth Point is St. Peter's Supremacy. This is, I must confess, an Article which all Catholics are obliged to believe; and because it is of high import, being the Basis of Papacy, I intent to Discouse of it at large, and to establish it.  
The Sixth Point, etc. Is the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy: This flows naturally from the Fifth, Jure successionis, St. Peter being the First Bishop of Rome invested with Universal Jurisdiction.  
The Seventh, is the Pope's Infallibility; to which I shall say nothing till you can prove it to be an Article of Faith to believe the Pope Infallible, separated from a General Council. As for his granting Indulgences to break God's Law (as you accuse him of) that is a false Crime of your own hatching; for we deny any thing of that Nature, knowing his Power to be conversant in things indifferent. As for his absolving Subjects of their Allegiance to their Princes; when 'tis acknowledged as an Article of Catholic Faith, I shall Discourse of it; in the interim I will only hope that no Person will absolve you, or that you will absolve yourself of your Allegiance; and herein we shall desire no more of you, than that you be as good Subjects to this present Prince, and stand by him with your Lives and Fortunes, as we did by his Royal Brother and Father.  
Your ensuing Discourse is to prove the Roman Church guilty of Fraternal Schism; for this you have Three strong Reasons.  
The First is, because she renounces Communion with other Churches, etc. As to this I must needs tell you, that it is an high piece of injustice in you wilfully to revolt from her, and then falsely to accuse her of renouncing Communion with you. 'Tis clear enough, that she rejects no Church that hath not Schismatically fallen off from her; and so found guilty of Schism and Heresy.  
The Second is, Because she denounces all damned, who submit not to her. This you look on as very hard and uncharitable, tho' the Church herein is not blamable; but those who dis-join themselves from her, and stand in opposition to her; she can do no less than acquaint them of their unhappy Estate; this she does out of kindness rathan severity, that they being thereby made sensible of their desperate condition, may return to her Bosom, and so avoid that Condemnation which attends those who depart this life unreconciled to her. Her plain dealing in this case has much more of tenderness than your Latitudinarian Indulgence, which flatters poor Souls with false hopes of Salvation; and then consigns them into the Hands of Perdition, cheating their baffled expectance of their imaginary Paradise.  
If you accuse the Roman Church of rigidness herein, you may bring the same Indictment against all the Fathers, there being not one Point in which they are more positive than concerning the Unity of the Church, and that out of its Pale Eternal Life is unattainable, Nemini salus nisi in Ecclesia, Cyprian 62 Epist. ad Pomp. and St. August. in his 204 Epist. to Donatus says, Foris ab Ecclesia constitutus aeterno supplicio punieris, etiamsi pro Christi nomine Vivus incendereris. The Fathers are so strict herein, that they look on that Person, who separates from the Catholic Church, to be in a damnable state, tho' he leads a Religious, Devout and Virtuous Life; Quisquis ab hac Catholicâ Ecclesiâ fuerit separatus, quantumlibet laudabiliter vivere se existimet, hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate fuerit sejunctus, non habet vitam, sed ira Dei manet super ipsum, says St. Austin to Donatus; the Reason is, because being separated from the Catholic Church, he is consequently separated from Christ, who is the Head to that Mystical Body: Another Reason is, Quia in unâ Catholicâ Ecclesia vera hostia redemptionis immolatur. The Third Reason may be, Quia sola est per quam Sacrificium Dominus libenter accipiat, as I find it, St. Aust. Serm. 181. the temp. He has one Reason more in his 50 Epist. Quia extra hoc Corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus.  
Your Third Reason to prove Rome guilty of Fraternal Schism, is, Because she sends her Emissaries into the known World, etc. But instead of accusing her for this, had you not been of an ungrateful temper, you might have taken a fair opportunity of thanking her for sending her Apostles to convert this Nation to Christianity, when we lay in the impure Arms of Heathenism. But why should you take offence at her sending persons to propagate the Gospel, even to the Remotest, and most Barbarous Countries, as long as you (whilst they are in the midst of Persecutions and Martyrdoms) enjoy the soft Embraces of a Wife, and the affluence of United Live?   

CHAP. VII. Concerning Protestant's objecting Errors to the Church of Rome. The Author's Apology for himself. His Advice to the Protestant Parson; with some other Particulars.  
HAving hitherto followed you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tracing the print of your Footsteps, and in as succinct a manner as I could examined your Reasons to clear your Church of Schism, and to derive that crime on Rome, they have appeared to me too infirm, either to justify the one, or to cast the other. As for your accusing her of Errors, that being but supposed, and not proved, it imports nothing. Your Proofs to evince her Doctrines erroneous, must be as manifest as your Actual Schism; and your Arguments to justify your Schism must not be conjectural or Probable, but they must be as Ostensive and as  as that you made it. Nay, you must prove her guilty of Damnable Doctrines, and that Salvation was not attainable in her Communion; or else you can expect none out of it. For to accuse the Church of Error, and upon that account to departed from her, is Inevitable Perdition without a return. I know it was always customary with her Enemies to object unto her the want of Truth; but this was done by Schismatics, as St. Austin well observed, Hoc dicunt qui in Ecclesiâ non sunt: Upon this false surmise they audaciously attempt the reforming of her Doctrines, broaching new ones in opposition to them, which is done to authenticate and justify their Secession. This was anciently observed by St. Hierom. Nullum Schisma non sibi aliquam fingit Haeresim, ut recte ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur. First they separate, and so become Schismatics; then they mint new Articles of Belief, and so turn Heretics; one follows upon the Neck of the other, for they never continue long disjoined: Schism being a very fair step to Heresy, and Generally a Harbinger to it. Quis unquam Haereses instituit nisi qui se prius ab Ecclesiae Catholicae universitate & antiquitatis consensione discreverit, says Vinc. Lyrinensis. I know that in this case, Truth is the pretence, tho' indeed it is Pride and Arrogance which makes Men give the preference to their own Private Opinions, and which keeps them from submitting to the Decisions of the Church; for had they really with a pure ardour affected Truth, they had never gone out of her, who is the Pillar of Truth; out of which, when once departed, they must not expect a Pillar of Fire to Pilot them, but foolish Fires and Spirits of Delusion to misguide them through all the Serpentine wind and Mazes of falsehood. In ventre Ecclesiae veritas manet, quisquis ab hoc ventre Ecclesiae fuerit separatus, necesse est ut falso loquatur, says St. August. on Psalm 57  
I am apt to believe, that if you would but once disenchant yourself from the Spells of your unhappy Education, and with an Impartial Judgement take a serious view of the Doctrines of the Church, as proposed and explicated by her (not as wrongfully represented by her Adversaries) that all those little Mormo's and Spectres raised by an injurious description of her Articles (which have hitherto frighted you) would disappear, and that you then would be so captivated as not to be able to resist the charms of her naked Truths. The force of Education is certainly great, and lays violent anticipations on the Judgement which misleads us in our Elections, disposing us to reject or embrace things, rather as they suit or jar with our first receptions and prepossessions, than by their conformity to Truth: Till these false Ideas be dislodged, Truth can expect no Introduction, but must stand excluded by Preconceptions. When this difficulty is conquered, you would do well to question the Integrity of those Authors who have wrote in defence of your New Religion, who first imbued your undiscerning Minority, with adulterate Tinctures, and then you are to apply yourself with an unprejudicate Mind to those Authors, who have opposed them. After this you must lay aside all thoughts of Secular Advantage. No Sophister can be more fallacious than Interest: This imposes on our yielding Temper, bribe's our Judgements, and by secret Attractions, draws us to the wrong. This made Alexander so violently stand up for his Ephesian Goddess, tho' a false Deity; and accordingly the Pythonissa was a long time maintained, tho' possessed with an impure Spirit, for the lucre that she acquired for her owners. In the last place, you are to divest yourself of your Conceitedness, and high Opinion of yourself, assuming Humble Thoughts: Fancy not yourself unfallible in your Explications of Scripture, look on it as unbecoming and arrogant in you, to censure the Doctrines of the Church, and to oppose the Definitions of General Councils. When you shall have conquered all these Impedimental Obstacles, you will soon descry those Mists which have hitherto benighted your Understanding to retire; then through a serene and disclouded Medium you will clearly see the verity of Catholic Doctrines, and by God's assistance implored, embrace them. Nullus pudor ad meliora transire. Amb. Epist. 31.  
But now finding you to plant your Artillery to play on me, I must take some care to defend myself, which I do not at all despond of.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Both Shields and Spears are in my Armoury,  
To guard myself, and gall my Enemy.  
First, You profess yourself hearty sorry that I own myself revolted from my Mother Church: But your sorrow being grounded upon a mistake, I beg of you to supersede it, Quam pro me curam geris, hanc precor optime pro me deponas, for I have not forsaken the Mother Church, but the Schismatical Daughter. But pray how can your Church be the Mother Church, which began but in Luther's days; and consequently, so young, that she resembles an Infant, rather than a grave Matron? I must confess, I cannot see her reckoned either by Irenaeus amongst those Churches which he calls Maximae & Antiquissimae, or by Tertullian amongst those which he terms Matrices & Originales; whereas the Roman Church is of that Antiquity and Renown, that the very Holy Ghost by the Pen of St. Paul celebrates her Faith and Fame. Henry the Eighth, before he had violated the pure Faith he first imbibed, in his Book against Luther, will tell you, which the World acknowledged for the Mother Church. Negare non potest Lutherus, quin omnis Ecclesia fidelium sacrosanctam sedem Romanam velut Matrem Primatemque recognoscat & veneretur. King James the First was not ignorant of this Truth, when in his Speech to the Parliament, he acknowledged the Church of Rome to be our Mother: And well she may be called our Mother, not only in point of Dignity, but Kindness, having twice planted the Gospel in this ungrateful Nation.  
Next, you seem dissatisfied that I should take so much pains to answer those Papers you sent my Brother, hazarding the Shipwreck of his Faith in my Paper-boat, under the notion of St. Peter's Bark. As to the first part you could not possibly imagine, that a Person of his green and verdant Years should be qualified to answer your Composures. But this I must needs say of him, That having perused them, he did much question their Truth and your Honesty in framing them, looking on them as beset with Adulterous Gems: The truth on't is, you had made them very plausible and winning, their Superficies being sprinkled with Scripture and Fathers, but Deceit and Cozenage lay at the bottom; and they may well be compared to those Vessels with which Hannibal cheated the Gortynians. Amphoras complures complet plumbo, Summas operit auro argentoque; this made me endeavour to rescue my Brother from being a Prey to these Nets you had spread for him, and to answer your Papers, as Nodus vindice dignus, not intending hastily to cut it, as Alexander did the Gordian knot, but leisurably to untie it.  
As for my being accused by you, for hazarding the Shipwreck of his Faith in my Paper-boat, under the notion of St. Peter's Bark; I must tell you, that by my keeping him in St. Peter's Ship, I preserved him unspotted of two dangerous Sins, Heresy and Schism; and I question not but (whatever your Opinion be) through the Infinite Mercies of his Redeemer, he is safely arrived at the Haven of Eternal Bliss; for as St. Ambrose Serm. 11. affirms, Hanc solam Ecclesiae Navim adscendit Dominus in quâ Petrus Magister est constitutus, dicente Domino, super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Sicut enim Arca No mundo naufragante cunctos quos susceperat illaesos reservavit, ita & Petri Ecclesia conflagrante saeculo omnes quos amplectitur repraesentabit illaesos. 'Tis usual with the Fathers to assimilate the true Church to a Ship: Epiphanius in his Second Heresy says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Church of God is like to a Ship: And St. Ambrose Lib. 3. de Virg. Navis Ecclesia est quae pleno Dominicae crucis velo Spiritus Sancti flatu in hoc bene navigat Mundo. And again, Hi igitur de Synagogâ ad Navim Petri, hoc est, ad Ecclesiam convenerunt: But in Serm. 15. he may be said to come nigh your Fancy, styling it a Bark: Nautellam istam fratres cogitate Ecclesiam, turbulentum mare hoc saeculum. This Bark, I question not, will ride Admiral in spite of any Fleet you shall be able to set out against her; and if you dare to embark yourself in such an Enterprise as to board her, I question not but that she is strongly enough Manned to defend herself.  
Your following Accusation reared against me, is of rashness, and you tell me, That a Matter of this Nature ought to have been deliberately managed. But how you should know what Authors I have perused, or what time I have impended in Matters of Religion, I cannot conjecture. This I am sure of, that I have not credulously surrendered myself into the Hands of any Opinion, neither have I omitted a competent ventilation of my Religion (otherwise I had never been able to throw off the prejudice I once had against it by a contrary Education) but have fully satisfied my Curiosity, Judgement, and Conscience, and do no more foster any doubts concerning the truth of Catholic Doctrines, than I question the certitude of Christianity.  
After all this, you seem to take it amiss, that I did not consult with your Oracular Tripus. But if you will promise me not to be offended at my open and free discovery, I will acquaint you, why I looked on you as an unfit Person to advise with in this case. 'Tis too evident to all that know you, that you have all along been appassioned, prejudiced, and scurrilous against Catholics, endeavouring to blast their Repute by defamatory Aspersions and slanderous Obloquy, taking all occasions to injure them in the Pulpit and out of it, both in their Morals and Religion, both in reference to their God and King, continually reviling and barking at them, as if you had been related to those sorts of Indians, which Pliny mentions in his Seventh Book to be Genus hominum capitibus caninis, & pro voce latratum edere. And how peccant you have been in your perverse disfiguring of Catholic Doctrine, and what purulent stuff you have raised from your exulcerated Lungs against the Bishop and See of Rome can be attested by multitudes. So I could not but look on you as an unfit Oracle to give Responsals herein. Had you not been so much tinctured with prejudice, and so strongly overbiassed, 'tis likely I might have resorted to your Infallible Cortina. You may be so good an Oculist as to know that the Crystalline Humour, wherein the visive Power sways, is not coloured; I leave the Application to you, whose Function renders you most qualified for it. I would not have you fancy, that I rip up these past things with a design to accuse you, my only intent herein is, (if possible) to stir you up to consult with your Second Thoughts, and to make Sedate and Calm Reflections on what you have passionately, and unadvisedly committed. By this Method you may be induced to repent of them, and for the future to suppress such Ebullitions of Gall, and Rancorous Defluxions, which tho' like a pleasant Potion may be imbibed by the uninquisitive and profane Herd, Densum humeris bibit aure vulgus; yet to the Politer sort they must needs be nauseous, and like the drops that fall nigh the Line, leave a putrid and corrupt steam behind them. I am the more free and affectionate to you herein, because you were so kind as to afford me your wholesome Advice; I fancied I could not better correspond with your favours, than to prompt your Memory to ruminate on your past transactions; and to show you how grateful I am for your good Counsel, I return you mine in its lieu; that (if ever you hope to obtain pardon for your miscarriages against the Catholic Church) you would endeavour Ad Ecclesiae Catholicae unitatem scissi Corporis membra componere, & Christianae Charitatis vinculo copulare, and effect as much as in you lies a Redintegration of the Primary Union, a Re-piecing the unwoven Garment of Christ miserably torn asunder by your Schism. Consider what a generous Action it would be to leap into this Gulf, and thereby close the unhappy Clefts and Breaches of Separation: Perpend how much more Christianlike it would be to moderate and reconcile Differences, rather than by abusive Expressions, and false Representations to exasperate and widen them: Think how ingenuous it would be in you (who are so influential and leading to the rest of your Flock) candidly to acknowledge your Errors, having been convinced of them; disabuse them of their false preoccupations, rescue them from the Chains of their Erroneous Education; dispose them to a right conception of Catholic Doctrine: Shed no more Cockle amongst 'em, as knowing yourself responsible for the pernicious Principles you infuse into them: Teach them sound Catholic Verities, gratify their distempered Stomaches with no more unwholesome viands, humour their prurient itching Ears with no more empty gingling, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deluding their dainty Ears with the Magic of the Tongue: When you have exerted your best endeavours herein, you may with some ground hope for Remission from Propitious Heaven; otherwise you may justly fear, that those Darts which you have thrown against the Catholic Church should beat back and reverberate upon yourself; for as St. Basil observes in his Hom. of Envy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Those Darts which are fling with violence if they light on any firm and obdurate Matter, recoil upon him that threw them.  
But I shall now decline things of this nature, and return you my Thanks for the long Bedroll of Authors which you have recommended to me; Jewel is the First, and indeed, you did well to place him in the Front, as being most bold and frontless; after him comes Whitaker, Abbot, Hall, White, Laud, Hammond, etc. these you desire me to peruse, not questioning but by an impartial reading of them I may be reduced from the stranger's Lap into the Bosom of my True,  Mother. I shall not go about to extenuate the Credit of these Men but shall pay a just Deference and Respect both to their Quality and Parts. But I shall not so overvalue them, as to grant them the Prelation to the Catholic Church, Councils and Fathers; nay, I shall not equalise them with Cardinal Bellarmine, Perròn, Baronius, or multitudes of others in the Roman Communion: I will grant you, that they have wrote as well as possibly could be in your behalf; and had your Case been desensible, they had maintained it; but it was their misfortune to be engaged in a wrong Quarrel, which they presuming to be true, have bend all their endeavours, and distended every Nerve to support Error, and obscure Truth. 'Tis pleasant to observe, how these cunning Fencing-Masters shift their Weapons; when they fight against Sectaries in defence of Episcopacy, one would swear they were perfect Catholics, Brandishing Glittering Weapons, drawn from the Armoury of Antiquity, Tradition, Practice of the Church, Councils and Fathers; but when they grapple with Catholics, the Case is altered, Then Scripture is the only Rule, Councils may err, and the Church Apostatise, and the Father's guilty of mistakes, making use of all the shifting, evading ways imaginable to avoid the dint of the Argument: But as soon as I came to understand the vast difference amongst them in their Dispute with Catholics, I did conclude their Case very bad. Whitaker in his Answer to Campians Reasons appeals to the first Six hundred Years after Christ, which Jewel likewise did in his Ostentatious crack at St. Paul's Cross; but Dr. Humphrey in the Life of him does much reprehend him for his bold appealing to the Fathers, as if he had thereby spoiled himself and his Church in giving the Catholics too large scope. Bishop Laud being sensible of Jewels rashness, lops off, very fairly, Two hundred Years, contracting the time to a narrower compass, to the Fathers of the first Four hundred Years, as appears in his Forty eighth Sect. The Protestants offer (says he) to be tried by all the Ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first Four hundred years, and somewhat further. Dr. Hammond, who I conceive to be much more Learned than the two foregoing, finding Bishop Laud's Four hundred Years not to hold Water, abates One hundred of them in his Eighth Chapter of Schism. For the particular Doctrines (saith he) wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to departed from the Unity of the Faith, we make no doubt to approve ourselves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures, and consent of the first Three hundred Years, or the Four General Councils: This pruning of Antiquity, and shrinking it from the Sixth to the Fourth, and so to the Third Century, seemed to me the most foul and unreasonable thing imaginable; for by this means most of the chief Fathers, whose Works are most Copious, were excluded from attesting the truth of the Church's Doctrine, and very few admitted, only those who had wrote little or nothing of our differences, but some small Treatises, Epistles, and Apologies against Heathens, and Exhortations to Martyrdom, the Church being then under perpetual Persecutions. But to answer you concerning your Catalogue of Authors, I have perused those parts of their Works which relate to the Catholics; but they are so far from removing me out of the Stranger's Lap, that they have much contributed to my fixing myself there. But pray what makes you call the Roman Church a Stranger; don't you know that she is the Origin and Centre of Unity, and that all true Christians are obliged to Communicate with her? Don't Irenaeus (to whom I shall give more credit than to all your List of Authors) affirm, That all the Faithful are obliged to have recourse to this Church for its more powerful Principality? Does not St. Hierom say, That he is profane who Eats the Lamb out of this House? This is the place where God planted his only Altar; and here is fixed that Cathedra, against which, whoever erects another, is, as Optatus affirms, Schismaticus & peccator: 'Tis clear, that St. Hierom, tho' in reference to local distance, he was much remote from Rome, as he acknowledges in his Fifty seventh Epistle to Damasus, Neque vero tanta vastitas elementi liquentis & interjacens longitudo terrarum me à pretiosae margaritae potuit inquisitione prohibere; yet notwithstanding this, in the same Epistle, he says, Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior; The same happy state I hearty wish you and all other Schismatics, well knowing how deplorable a thing it is to die out of that Communion. I shall therefore conclude this Point with St Cyprian's Advice, Ad Matrem revertimini unde prodistis.   
The End of the First Part.   

THE SECOND PART.  

CHAP. I. The Preface to St. Peter 's Supremacy, and whether St. Andrew knew Christ's Divinity before St. Peter.  
WHAT I have hitherto wrote, may resemble a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a light Skirmish, it being but Prefatory and Introductive to that main design I am at, which is the Vindication of St. Peter's Supremacy; a Point of so high Import (being the Common Centre and Origin both of Catholic Unity, of Sacerdotal Dignity, and Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction) but withal, so strangely snarled and perplexed, that I think no Point stands more in need of an Assistant Hand to unclue its Intricacies, and to restore it to its native undisguised Visage, than this. And if (as Greg. Nazianzen affirms) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every Truth is with difficulty demonstrated and made visible. This may seem to require more pains than most others to represent it clear and manifest; it containing so many difficulties seemingly insuperable, and so many Knots inextricable, that to solve all the Doubts and Objections about it, would be a very fit Task for an Elias to undertake. For tho' this Point has had very Eminent Champions, who with the richest Bullion of their Learning and Florid Eloquence have maintained it, yet has it had no want of considerable Opposers to impugn it, who guided either by their Judgement or Interest have not failed to make a fair Scene and Pomp both of their Reading and Talents to undermine it. I who incidentally fell upon this Subject, am not insensible of its being too Sublime for me to handle, nor ignorant of its being too momentous and weighty for me to sustain its Pondure; but finding myself engaged therein, and discovering in myself a particular curiosity in penetrating deeper into it; I shall not now stop my pursuit and indagation after it, but continue the quest till I have given myself full satisfaction, and rescued this Captive Truth from those Fetters you have enchained it with, in your obscure Durance. And as you have united all the Forces of your Wit to the numerous Auxiliaries of Quotations, and Spoils of plundered Authors, pressing even the unwilling Fathers to fight for you in defence of your Opinion; so I question not but to meet you with as great a strength, and to vie, and drop Citations with you, attended with larger Shoals and Clouds of Testimonies. Now tho' this is likely to prove a toilsome and operose Province, yet I am resolved to undergo it, hoping to meet with some alleviation of my Fatigue in the detection of your Errors, which cannot be but delectable and satisfactory; for as we have in us a Principle of Abhorrency from being imposed on, so we are naturally endowed with a strong Appetite, and bend to the investigation of Truth; and as Cicero observes, Veritatis luce menti hominis nihil dulcius, nothing is more luscious and pleasing to our Natures than Truth. This is that fine Mistress which Men of all persuasions pretend to Court, but is enjoyed by few, most being cheated by the Counterfeits and Impostures of Error dressed up in her semblance; for Error, Fallacy and Deception arise from the appearance of some similitude, as Aristotle observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as when one takes a Parhelion for the Sun, or embraces a gaudy painted Vapour for Juno. This is the Method which St. Chrysostom says, the Devil takes in deceiving Mankind; he introduces Error into the company of Truth; then he paints it with his deceitful Colours, adding some false Strokes and lineaments whereby it may somewhat resemble Truth, and thereby cousin the seducible: His words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
I shall now gird myself to the performance of what I have undertaken, detecting those many false semblances you have made use of to countenance your Opinion; and laying bare all those Deceits you have covered with the specious Mask of the Authority of the Fathers; refining the Truth from those Adulterate Mixtures you have endeavoured to debase it with, by rendering it pure and unalloyed.  
The first thing that encounters my view, is your accusing me of laying a false Hypothesis at the Foundation of St. Peter's Supremacy, by my asserting, that he first knew Christ's Divinity: This you deny, affirming St. Andrew and Nathaniel to have got the start of him in the knowledge of that Mystery. Now because the Foundation of every Fabric ought to be firm and strong to support the Superstructure, I shall throughly dissect those Reasons you have made use of (as so many Machines') to evert and undermine my Hypothesis; and manifest unto you how unsufficient and unable they be for such a Design, and withal discover with what false Topics you have deluded yourself. The Argument you use to evince St. Andrew elder in the knowledge of Christ's Divinity than St. Peter, is derived from the first Chapter of St. John, where it appears, that St. Andrew was the first of the Apostles, who acknowledged our Saviour for the Messiah. Now (say you) he first knowing him to be the Messiah, consequently knew his Divinity, because in the 9th. of Isaias v. 5. the Emanuel is styled God. This your Argument does not seem forcible to me: For tho' I grant that the Messiah is called so by the Prophet; yet it does not follow that St. Andrew, by the Hebrew word El, or Deus (which was not God's Incommunicable Name, but Jehovah) should know the Messiah to be the natural Son of God, of the same essence and substance with the Deity; but rather that he apprehended him as some eminent Person, extraordinarily endowed by God, sent to free the Jewish Nation from the Bondage of the Romans, to whom they were subjugated: This is Theophyl. his Opinion, they did expect that their Messiah should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; A Saviour and Redeemer from those afflictions which lay upon them, and from the yoke of Bondage which the Romans had imposed on them, and to Reign in a Terrestrial Kingdom: This seems to be their plain Sense of the Messiah, and accordingly in the following Verse of Isaias, 'tis said of him, Super solium David, & super regnum ejus sedebit. This made Nathaniel, after he had confessed Christ to be the Son of God, to add, Tu es Rex Israel. This made the Apostles before our Saviour's Resurrection ambitiously to court the highest Preferment and Dignity in his Kingdom, looking on it as Terrene, Aspectable and Pompatick. And we find Cleophas (no meaner a Person than the Brother of St. Joseph, the Father of the two Apostles St. James and St. Judas, very intimate with the whole Apostolic Choir) in the Twenty fourth of St. Luke, to describe our Saviour (in the Character he gives of him) not as the Consubstantial Son of God, but as an Eminent Man, an Illustrious Prophet, Jesus Nazarenus qui fuit vir Propheta potens in opere & Sermone, etc. Hence Theophyl. takes notice of his diminutive thoughts of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; See what a low and slender Opinion they had of our Lord, they call him a Man, a Prophet, such an one as Elias or Moses. Then he freely discovers what great expectations they had fomented of his glorious Achievements, Nos sperabamus quod ipse redempturus sit Israel; upon which St. Ambrose in his Ninety sixth Psalm Enarrat. glosses thus, Jam spem perdiderant, non enim dixerunt speramus eum redempturum, sed sperabamus quòd esset redempturus Israel: And accordingly Theophyl. observes, that they spoke this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as defeated of their Hopes and Expectance. Thus it seems apparent, that they looked on their Messiah, as one that should be Israel's Restaurator, Redemptor, Liberator, as one sent to raise up the fallen Kingdom of Judea, and to restore it to its Pristine Glory, and to file its Lustre as Radiant as it was in the Golden Days of King David and Solomon.  
But to come to the Hebrew word El or Deus, which is, the very Lock in which the strength and nerve of your Argument lodgeth, none can by that word prove the Hypostatick Union in the Messiah, that he should be very God of very God: God by Essence and Nature, because he is called El; for in the Old Testament I find, not only Angels, but eminently Potent, and Godly Men are called Elohim. Thus in Psalm 138. In conspectu Angelorum psallam tibi; in the Hebrew 'tis Elohim, and in Psalm 8. Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis: 'Tis likewise Elohim in the Hebrew: And in Psalm 82. Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum, in medio autem Deos dijudicat: Here the Eminent Judges are called Elohim, or Gods; and in the same Psalm likewise, Ego dixi Dii estis. Moses is also called God, and that by God himself, Exodus 5. Dixit Dominus ad Moysen, ecce constitui te Deum Pharonis, which Hilarius in enarrat. Psalm 136. took notice of, Invenio & Mosen Deum nuncupari, cum ei dicitur, Deum te posui Pharaoni. Hence Philo Lib. primo de Mose, says, Cum amicorum omnia sunt communia, Deus potestatem & opes suas cum Sanctis communicate; and St. Basil, Hom. de Spiritu Sancto says, That Holy Men are called Gods, for having the Holy Ghost dwelling in them. St. Cyril. l. 7. c. 12. John observes, that the word Deus in Holy Writ is taken in a triple Sense: First, by Nature, as Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus. Secondly, By Adoption or Participation, by which, they who are Adopted to be Sons of God, become partakers of the Divinity, and are called Gods. Thirdly, Falsely so called, and only nominally, as the Devils and Idols, as it is in Psal 49. Omnes Dii Gentium Daemonia. Now that which I deduce from hence is this, That notwithstanding St. Andrew had known that the Messiah was called by Isaias El or Deus, it does not at all follow, that by that Description he should conceive him to be the Son of God by Eternal Generation, that being a Mystery which was inaccessible to Humanity, without a Revelation, and not knowing him to be such a Son of God, he was ignorant of his real Divinity. This Recondit and Sublime Mystery did transcend all the Natural Wit and Subtlety both of Men and Angels, and was unattainable without a Celestial Illustration; therefore Christ calls the manifestation of it a Revelation, as of a thing hidden, and abstruse, as Theophyl. observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He calls the Knowledge of this Mystery a Revelation, as a discovery of Occult and unknown things made manifest by the Father: And accordingly Origen acknowledges, that St. Peter arrived to this Knowledge, not by Humane Skill or penetrancy of Wit; but by illumination from the Heavenly Father: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter as a Disciple, not of Flesh and Blood, but of the Father in Heaven, comprehending the Revelation, confessed him to be THE CHRIST. But wholly to elucidate the inconcludency of your Argument, that St. Andrew must necessarily know the Divinity of the Messiah, because Isaias calls him Deus; to this I answer, That 'tis apparent by the 24th. of St. Luke, that the Apostles did not understand the Prophets till our Saviors Resurrection; for in the 45th Verse, he then opened their Understanding to apprehend the Scriptures; and in the 27th Verse, he beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, interpreted them to his Disciples.   

CHAP. II. The differenc betwixt Nathaniel 's and St. Peter 's Confession of Christ: and in what Sense St. Peter is said to be Os Apostolorum.  
MY next employ shall be to ventilate the Confession which Nathaniel made of Christ, and try whether it be of the same stamp and import with St. Peter's: The first I shall consult with herein, shall be Theophyl. who in his Notes on the Frst Chapter of St. John gives this account of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Notwithstanding that Nathaniel does confess Christ to be the Son of God, yet he does not confess him as Peter did: He confessed him the Son of God, as true God; therefore he received the Beatification, and was entrusted with the Church; but Nathaniel confessed him as a mere Man, graciously adopted by God for his Virtue; for he was not as yet arrived to the perfect knowledge of the real Deity of the only begotten Son. St. Chrysost. likewise in his 55th Hom. on St. Matt. makes nathaniel's Confession, and that of others, to be quite of a different nature, and of no Cognation with Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They did not confess such a Filiation as Peter did, but looked on him as one of those many Sons which God had, but as the most eminent and choice of them all, but not as of the same Substance with God. And in the same Homily he declares, that St. Peter knew him as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as his Proper, Natural Son, and therefore rewarded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Why was St. Peter pronounced Blessed? because he confessed Christ to be the Natural Son of God, upon that score he pronounced none of those who confessed him before Blessed. This is likewise the Opinion of Epiphanius adver. Cath. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; because he clearly confessed him the true Son of God: for in saying he was the Son of the Living God, he demonstrated him to be his Natural Son. Now if Nathaniel, as you affirm, made a true Confession of Christ before Peter, what Reason can be given, that Christ, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no respecter of Persons, should give that reward of Beatus es, etc. to Peter, which Nathaniel did more deserve, if (as you say) he first made true Confession of him? Now, as for Nathaniels' Confession, it was so far from deserving a Reward, that coming short of the Truth (as Chrysost. affirms in his 55 Hom. Matt.) it was derogatory to Christ; for what could seem more lessening and eclipsive of his Lustre and Excellency, who both in Essence and Glory was equal to God the Father, than to be looked on as an Eminent Man, as a Petty King, Rex Israel? He that holds the whole Fabric of the World in the hollow of his Hand, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, is by guileless Nathaniel entitled but as King of Judea; whereas Peter looked on him as the Monarch of the unbounded Universe. This Flaw was observed in Nathaniels' Confession by Theophyl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: If he had confessed him God indeed, he would not have called him King of Israel, but King of the Universe, therefore he was not pronounced Blessed: And likewise by St. Chrysost. in his 17th. Hom. on St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Son of God is not King of Israel, but of all the World. Now tho' the words that Nathaniel spoke do resemble Peter's, as St Austin in his 6th Tract of St. John, observes, Talem vocem protulit Nathaniel qualem Petrus; yet Chrysost. conceives the Sense of them to be very foreign and remote from St. Peter's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Peter and Nathaniel spoke the same words, but not with the same meaning, for Peter confessed him the Son of God, as truly God, but Nathaniel, as a mere naked Man. These things being duly weighed in just Scales, your Argument that Nathaniel knew our Saviour's Divinity, because he called him Filius Dei, seems to me very feeble and invalid; that Title being given usually to Persons eminent for Sanctity, who are no Natural, but Adopted Sons of God; Sons by Election, not Generation, as Rom. 8. Quicunque Spiritu Dei aguntur, two sunt filii Dei: And John 1. Dedit eis potestatem Filios Dei fieri: And in Gen. 6. Seths' Sons are called, Filii Dei, not by Nature, but for their Temeperance, Justice and Sanctity, by which Divine Embellishments, Humanity approximates to Divinity, and may be said to be allied to it.  
It remains then to assert, that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles that knew the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour; he attaining to the knowledge of this most lofty Truth, not by the dusky twilight of the shady Prophets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not making use of penetrating subtlety, or persuaded thereto by Humane Reasonings, but having his Understanding enlightened by God the Father: Or as Origen has it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a light beaming from the Father: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from God himself, says Athanasius in his 4th. Orat. count. Arrianos. Patris ipsius enuntiatione filium Dei Christum ipsum esse agnovit, as Just in affirms in Tryph. Haec fides paternae revelationis est munus, says, Hil. 6. Trinit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Chrysost. in Petrum & Eliam. Peter, who confessed the Truth by a Divine Revelation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dion. Eccles. hire. Illuminated by the Divine Revelation of the most Sacro-sanct Father. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Epiph. Anchor. Peter was assisted by God in laying a sure Foundation of Faith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyr. Dial. 4. de Trinit. God the Father from above, manifestly discovering his proper Son.  
Thus having so glorious and able a Tutor, who, together with his Divine Doctrine could bequeath a Capacious, Suscipient Apprehension, he first knew that the Word was made Flesh, the Mystery of the Trinity, and the Distinction of the Persons.  
He then knew him as the splendour of God's Glory, and Figure of his Substance, Heb. 10. He knew him as one in whom the plenitude of the Deity inhabited Corporally, Col. 2.  
He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as one sitting on the same Throne with God, as of the same Glory, Nature, and Substance, as of the same Power, Glory; and Sovereignty. He knew him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the proper Son of God, the only Son, having no other Brother. He knew him, as Origen has it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As that select Son, he by way of emimence, THE SON. He knew him to be the Son of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Properly not Catachrestically, Naturally, not by Adoption. He knew him, not as one advanced, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from a Servant to an Adopted Son, but as a Son begot from Eternity by an inscrutable, incomprehensible Generation, as may be gathered out of the Greek Fathers, to whom I shall adjoin some of the Latins, that you may see how accordantly they conspire in this Point. St. Ambrose Lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto, accosts our Saviour in this manner, Vnum te esse cum Patre dixisti, quia hoc credidit Petrus, Claves regni Coelorum accepit. And again, speaking of Peter's Confession, he acknowledges it to include, Non adoptionis nomen, sed naturae proprietatem; non creationis in eo ignobilitatem, sed nativitatis gloriam. And St. Austin in his Serm. 144. de Temp. says, That Peter did not look on Christ as unus ex Prophetis, sed ut filius adimpletor Prophetarum, Creator Angelorum. And in his 26. Tract. on John, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, non sicut aliquis magnus justus, sed sicut unicus, sicut aequalis. He then knew him as Filius Altissimi, Luke 1. as Filius unigenitus, John 3. as Filius proprius, Rom. 8. as Filius verus, John 1. 5. This his Confession St. Austin calls Vera & plena Confessio. Chrysost. calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A complete Confession; and it could not but be so, since it was not Peter's conjectural Apprehension, but the Father's Doctrine, and Suggestion: This Confession Christ commends, partly from its Effect, Being, Beatitude; partly, A causa procreante, which was the Father; this he amplifies, Antithesi causae disparatae judicii, vel virium naturalium, to show that all the Forces of Man's Wit, all Human Wisdom, Industry, and Sagacity could never have arrived to it without a Revelation. This Christ approves of, not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a Human Opinion, but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Divine Decree; this according to Chrysost. he illustrates and explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As you are are the Son of Ionas, of the same substance, so am I consubstantial with my Father. This Confession he strictly charges them to conceal, as being too sublime to be divulged, whereas Nathaniel had liberty to publish his. This Confession our Saviour not only owned, but accepted of Peter's person, which Theophyl. says, Was a sign that all other men's Opinions of him were false; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lastly our Saviour was pleased highly to reward Peter for the Merits of this Confession; and this is the concurrent suffrage of all the Fathers; I shall here insert the Say of some of them.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Basil advers. Eunomium Lib 2. Peter, who for the acknowledging the Truth was honoured with the Beatitude.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Epiph. Ancorate. Peter says thou art the Son of the Living God, and Christ presently declares him Blessed.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theoph. Therefore he is pronounced blessed and entrusted with the Church.  
St. Hierom says on Matt. 16. Testimonio de se Apostoli reddit vicem, dixerat Petrus, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, mercedem recepit vera confessio, Beatus es Simon Bar-jona, etc. St Austin. Serm. 13. in Matt. Deinde addidit & ego dico tibi, etc. Tanquam diceret, quia tu dixisti mihi, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, & ego dico tibi, quod, etc. Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignum plane confessio Petri praemiùm consecuta est.  
I shall add no more Testimonies to strengthen this Point, but advance it to its deserved height; for you are to understand, that tho' Peter's Confession did exceed that of others, by declaring Christ to be Gods Natural Son; yet this was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honour; but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolic Society, illuminating him with a particular Revelation, and inspiring him what he should return in answer to Christ his Question; or if you please, God himself spoke by him, making use of his Organs: You will find by the following Quotations that the Fathers assert both.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — He was declared Blessed, because he spoke the Sense of God, because he received what he spoke from the Divine Grace.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiph. Anchor. As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth, who by our Lord was vouchsafed to be proclaimed Blessed, because the Father discovered the Revelation to him.  
Origen affirms in his Notes on St. Matthew, that St. Peter knowing the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Revelation of the Father; had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The highest Blessing: And accordingly St. Austin, Psalm 138. Jamdudum quia dixerat, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, auvit, non tibi revelavit Caro & Sanguis, sed Pater meus qui est in Caelis, ideo Petra, ideo Beatus.  
Thus you may easily perceive, that the source of Peter's Glory was originated from God, who became his Tutor, and taught him this Divine and Mystical Theology, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Damascene calls it: And accordingly St. Ambrose, Incar. Dom. Sacram. says, Qui veram generationem loquitur Patris a Patre assumpsit, Peter spoke it, but God suggested it, as Damascen affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This Doctrine God declared to him and he taught it the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiph. Anchor. For Christ did not ask the Question as if he were ignorant, but as willing to manifest, that this was the Doctrine of the Father, which did proclaim his true Son to the Church. That Peter should be enforced to speak and declare what he was taught by the Father. He being thus endoctrinated from Heaven, promulges this Article of belief, and imparts it faithfully to the rest, as Epiph. in Anchor. observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he makes a true discovery of Christ, who had shaded himself, and was pleased to pass Incognito, under the Title of Son of Man; but Peter by a luminous illapse and ray from above, finds him out, and Proclaims him the Son of God. St. Hierom affirms, That he had this Revelation from the Holy Ghost, but this his Opinion can raise no difference, for Opera Sanctissimae Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa; his words are these, Quod Caro & Sanguis revelare non potuit Spiritûs Sancti gratiâ revelatum est: And again in another place, Ex confession Petrus sortitur vocabulum quod Revelationem ex Spiritu Sancto habeat, cujus & filius appellandus, alluding to Barjona, for in the Hebrew Language Jona signifies Columba, the Symbol of the Holy Spirit descending in that shape. Hence we may see what a high Favourite this grand Apostle was of every Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Father, and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles, and honour him particularly with a Revelation. Christ superadds to this Dignity, making him a promise of building his Church on him; and of the Donation of the Keys, and after this, constituting him his Supreme Vicar, Pastor and Head of his Universal Church, as shall hereafter be manifested.  
Now after all this you are pleased to pass a slight Compliment on St. Peter, allowing him to be a forward speaker, and therefore styled by the Fathers, Os Apostolorum, and if he were their Mouth, you say, he surely spoke their Mind. To return a fit answer to this, I shall first examine in what Sense he may be termed the Mouth of the Apostles: And then I shall inquire whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity, as he had when he offered to solve the proposed Question. First, I must acknowledge, that I cannot find in any place of the Scripture, that the Apostles ever chose or pitched upon Peter for their Speaker, but spoke themselves to Christ when they had a mind to it, or saw occasion; this I shall prove by several Instances, as Matt. 13. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli, dicentes, edissere nobis hanc parabolam. Matt. 14. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli ejus, dicentes, desertus est locus. Matt. 15. Dicunt ei Discipuli ejus, unde ergo nobis in deserto panes? Matt. 17. Tunc accesserunt Discipuli ad Jesum, secreto dicentes, etc. And John 14. dicit, ei Thomas; and in the same Chapter, Dicit ei Philippus; and John 12. Dixit ei Judas Iscariotes; and as Nazianzen observes in his 26th Oration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Peter asks Christ one Question, Philip another, Judas this, Thomas something else; and indeed any other of them did the same. By this it clearly appears, that they all spoke to our Saviour as well as Peter. Nay in St. John 13. Peter gets John to speak for him, beckoning on him to ask Christ a Question: Besides, they did not only in their Addresses to Christ speak for themselves, but likewise answered for themselves, when Christ proposed any Question which they could solve. Thus in Matt. 13. 51. Christ asked them, if they understood all these things? they said to him, Yes Lord. Christ asked them, How many Loaves they had? they answered, Seven. He asked them, Matt. 21. 31. Which of the two Brothers did his Father's Will? they said, The first. He asked them, Whether they wanted any thing, when he sent them without Purse, Scrip, or Shoes? they said, Nothing. And in John 21. he asked them, Whether they had any thing to eat? they answered him, No. These easy Questions, you see they all answered as well as Peter; but when Christ proposed this difficult Question which we now treat of; all the rest were silent, and Peter only answered it. 'Tis very observable, that tho' it was proposed to them all in the Plural Number, Peter only replied to it, and in this, all the Evangelists, as many as mention it, agree exactly, as you may see in Matt. 16. Mark 8. and Luke 9 whereas in their raccounting other Passages they seem to vary.  
Now 'tis easily discernible when Peter speaks for the Rest, uttering their common Sentiment, by his speaking in the Plural Number, as in St. John 6. upon our Saviors ask them, Nunquid & vos vultis abire? Peter answers in the Plural Number in the name of all of them, Domine ad quem ibimus? Here Theophyl. observes, that he spoke for all of them; his Reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For he did not say, to whom shall I go, but to whem shall we go? And accordingly St. Austin in his 28th Tract. Johan. Respondit Petrus pro omnibus, unus pro multis, unitas pro universis, Domine ad quem ibimus? Repellis nos a te, da nobis alterum te. Peter likewise spoke for them all when he said, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia & secuti sumus te. Hence Christ answers to them all in the Plural Number, Dico vobis quod vos qui secuti estis me, etc. And likewise when in John 6. 69, he says, We believe and know that thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God: Here he undertook by answering for the Rest, to give an account of their Faith; but he committed a great mistake therein, for Christ told him, that that was not the belief of all of them, one of them being a Devil. When they were all accused, as warmed with new Wine, Peter makes an Apologetical Harangue in the defence and name of them all. By these Passages 'tis obvious and transparent, that Peter herein was the Representative of the Apostolic Society, venting in these his Responsals their joint and united Opinions; so I shall supersede a further pursuit herein, and make it my present business to inform myself in what Sense some of the Fathers entitle him Os Apostolorum, whereas indeed they had as much liberty and freedom of speaking to our Saviour as he had. The most Radiant and Plausible Opinion amongst them, for their dubbing him their Speaker, was, because they looked on him as their Prince; and thus it may not improperly be said in a subordinate Sense, that what was spoken by the chief of the Society, was said by the whole Company, he representing them all as their Head and Prince; and in this Sense it is that Cyril acknowledges Peter to have answered for the Rest, as is apparent in several places of his Comments on St. John, Princeps Caputque caeterorum primus exclamat, Tu es Christus, etc. Per unum qui praeerat omnes respondent. Per Principem consortii haud dubitant exclamare, Tu es Christus, etc.  
And accordingly 'tis very familiar with Chrysost. after he has styled him, The Mouth of the Apostles, to join another word with it, which denotes him to be chief; as in his 55th Hom. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And again on the 87th Hom. on St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was the Prince of the Apostles, and Mouth of the Disciples, the Supreme top of the Society. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter the Prince of the Apostolic Choir, the Mouth of the Disciples, De occursu Domini. Thus St. Hierom, who acknowledges that Peter did profess this Truth, ex persona omnium, acknowledges him to be their Head. St. Cyprian in his 55th Epistle declares, that Peter answered for all of them, but confesses he did this as the Representative of the Church, Vnus pro omnibus loquens, Ecclesiae voce Respondens. St. Austin fancies he only answered to preserve Unity, Vnus pro multis dedit responsum, unitas in multis: And in his 118 Tract. de Temp. Ideo unus pro omnibus, quià unitas in omnibus: But in Serm. 13. Evang. Matt. He gives Three chief Reasons why Peter is said to be their Speaker. First, Because he is the Type of the only Church. Then because he was the Prince or Chief of the Apostles. Lastly, Because he was most ardent in his Affection towards Christ, Petrus unicae Ecclesiae Typus ipse in ordine Apostolorum primus, in Christi amore promtissimus, saepe unus respondit pro multis. 'Tis customary with St. Austin to affirm, that Peter represents sometimes, the Church, sometimes the Apostles; the Church he represents as its Head and Rector, the Apostles as their Primate, as will hereafter be made out; and in this Sense he is called their Speaker, not as if he were their Attorney or Praeco, but their Princeps.   

CHAP. III. Whether the other Apostles knew Christ's Divinity as soon as St. Peter? Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St. John, etc. And concerning the Devil's knowledge of Christ.  
THe next thing I am obliged to Discuss, is, Whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as St. Peter had, when Christ proposed this Question to them, Vos autem quem me dicitis esse? So that Peter herein may be said to have spoke but their Sense, and that they knew, and could have answered the Question as well as he. This is in short, what you affirm, and what is attested by Modern Protestant Writers. Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Peter says thus of him, Does he confess Christ the Son of God? Besides, that herein he speaks but the Sense of all the Rest; this was no more than what others said as well as he. Nathaniel expressly told him, Thou art the Son of God. This is likewise Dr. Barrow's Sense of it, only he delivers it more Sportively and Comically in his Treatise of the Supremacy, p. 43. But who say ye that I am? up starteth Peter, he skippeth forth and preventeth the other Apostles, not ignorant of the Point, they took Jesus for the Messiah, which according to the common notion of the Jews, did imply his being the Son of God; they had the same Faith, he from a special alacrity of Spirit, and expedition in utterance, more forward in declaring it. This Opinion seemed to me very thin and silly, That Christ should propound a Question to a Dozen Persons, which he knew any of them could solve, and make honourable Promises only to him that should speak first, seemed to me a childish fancy, and beneath the Conceptions of a Doctor, this being not to reward an Excellency of Faith, but the promptitude of a nimble Tongue, which has nothing of Merit in it. Having now mentioned the two above cited Doctors, I shall add something more to their Quotations. Peter is said to answer for the Rest, not as if he spoke or knew their Opinion on this Point; for the Question was asked by our Saviour on a sudden; and it does no where appear, that the Apostles had any Praecedaneous Conference or Consultation about it; but because his Answer thereto was Orthodox, they were obliged to own and embrace it as the Common Belief of the Church. And I conceive, that upon our Saviors ask the Question, the rest being silent, and suspending their Answer, Peter first spoke not their Common, but his Particular Sentiment; Suam fidem pro se professus est, says Jansenius; Pro se solo respondit, says Abulensis; and this he did as one made more knowing than the Rest, being instructed in this Mystery by a particular Revelation from the Father. He then being more fervid than the Rest, inflamed by this illumination from God, and instigated thereto by a Divine impulse, hastened with all speed to describe the Son as the Father had instructed him, lest any of the Twelve should speak any thing beneath, and unworthy of Christ, and so be rebuked by him as they often were. This is what St. Chrysost means, when he says, Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not a first starting or hopping, or skipping, as the Doctor paints to himself in his deluded fancy; for St. Peter did not merit any thing by speaking first, and so preventing them by the glibness of a voluble Tongue, but by the eminency of his Faith, by his anticipating the rest in the knowledge of that Mystery: Hence 'tis as Jansenius observes, Cum Chrysostomus & alii eum vocant Os, & nomine omnium respondisse, non sic accipiendum quasi responderit id quod omnes sentirent, sed quia solus responderit quod omnibus respondendum fuisset. Now if the other Apostles did equally know it with Peter, and he only spoke their Sense for them, I shall with Maldonat ask this Question, Si pro omnibus Petrus loquebatur, cur non omnibus dictum beati estis? Cur non omnibus mutata nomina? Cur non omnibus dictum vobis dabo, etc. Besides it seems strange to me that the rest should be able to understand this Mystery without a Revelation; and that Peter, who in other things was more forward and penetrant, should here be so dull and unapprehensive as not to discover this without a particular Beam from the Father of Light; for had he understood it before, the Revelation had been superfluous: But herein Dr. Hammond was pleased to lend me his charitable Hand, by clearing up this doubt to me in these words, I must in Charity (says he) believe, that some other of the Twelve acknowledged the Divinity of Christ, and had it revealed to them by the Father. This seemed at first very apposite; but when I considered that the Doctor could not possibly prove any Revelation either at or before that time, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, to any of the Twelve, but to Peter; I concluded, that what the Doctor was pleased to call Charity, was really Policy: So I left him, and applied myself to St. Hilary, as being the abler Man, and he acquainted me, that the other Apostles were ignorant of it, on Matt. 13. Ignorantibus caeteris primus, Respondit, Tu es, etc. And Cyril in his 11th Catech. informed me, That the other Apostles were silent at our Saviour's Question, because it was above Humane reach. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. All the Apostles being silent, for this Doctrine was above the power of Humane Apprehension, Peter the Prince of the Apostles, etc. And accordingly Hilarius Lib. 6. de Trin. acknowledged it to be Vltra humanae infirmitatis modum. This Doctrine (as St. Ambrose affirms Lib. 4. Lucae.) a Human Mind could never comprehend, Plenâ rationis investigatione: This made the other Apostles to hesitate, and fluctuate, not knowing what Answer to shape to this sublime Question, as Basilius Seleucius observed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But whom say ye I am? He suspended them all in silence, and seeing their ignorance, he suggested to Peter an Answer from God.  
Now what concerns the other Apostles, altho' I grant, that they took Christ to be the Shiloh or Messiah, yet that did not imply to them his being Gods Natural Son, Per identitatem substantiae, but rather an Imputative, or Assumptive Son: And this their belief did amount to no more than this, Credimus te esse Messiam, quem scimus vocari Filium Dei. Now altho' they called him Filius Dei, and thereby seemed to know his Name, they were ignorant of his Nature, whereas Peter, by virtue of his Revelation knew both. Complexus est omnia, qui nomen & naturam complexus est, as Ambrose says: And herein lies the difference 'twixt Peter's knowledge and theirs. For the true knowledge of the Messiah consisted in knowing his Nature, as Hilarius observes, Gloria Revelationis Naturae scilicet non nominis, cum frequentata nominis professio jam fuisset. 'Twas ordinary and common with them to call an egregious Person Filius Dei. Hence the Seamen upon his appeasing the tumultuous Sea, called him so. 'Tis not at all probable, that such rude illiterate People should know the Mystery of the Trinity, his Consubstantiality with God. The Centurion likewise in St. Mark says of him, Vere hic homo filius erat Dei, which saying is very well explained by St. Luke, Vere hic homo justus erat; this word Filius, is ascribed to Men as well as Christ, as Chrysost. affirms in his 4th Hom. de incompreh. Dei. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 'Tis properly attributed to him, improperly to Men; and accordingly St. Amb. Lib. 1. de fide Filius aut per adoptionem, aut per naturam est; per adoptionem nos filii dicimur, ille per veritatem naturae est.  
Having plainly evidenced the difference 'twixt Peter's Sentiments of Christ, and that of the other Apostles: I shall add this, That the Fathers, when they incidently say, That the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God, before Peter's promulging him so, do mean thereby his Nominal, and not his Natural Filiation: If they do not mean so, they must prove, that the others had Revelations of that kind; for I will never be induced to believe otherwise than that St. Peter's Revelation did discover to him more than either what he or they knew before, otherwise it had been of no import. That which confirms me in this my Opinion concerning the Fathers, is, because I find St. Ambrose in one place to affirm, that the other Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God as well as Peter; and in another place, to seem to appropriate it wholly to him, Lib. 4. Lucae. Et si aliis imperatur ut laxent retia sua, soli tamen Petro dicitur, duc in altum, hoc est, in profundùm disputationum, quid enim tam altum quam altitudinem divitiarum videre, scire Dei filium & professionem divinae generationis assumere; and accordingly he explains, duc in altum, in his 3d. Book de Virg. duc in altum ad filium altissimi, non ducebat in altum quando in stagno piscabatur. By these Quotations he plainly ascribes to Peter only the knowledge of the Divine Generation. And in his 84th Serm. he makes him to excel in Faith, and consequently in his Confession, Petrus solus Christum Dei filium confitetur; gradus quidem sunt fidei, & qui devotius credit religiosius confitetur. Besides this, I find, several of the Father's acknowledging Peter first to know, and first to confess Christ his Divinity. Hilarius on Matt. 16. Dignus judicatus est, qui quod in Christo Dei esset primus, cognosceret. Et in enarrat. Psalm. 131. he calls him Primum filii Dei confessorem: And accordingly St. Cyrill. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter first confessed the Faith. St. August. Serm. 124. de Temp. Hic est Petrus, qui Revelatione Divinâ primus omnium veritatem meruit confiteri dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. And Origen in his Comments on St. Matt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The reading of the Scripture makes it evident every where, that Peter now first of all confesses Christ to be the Son of the Living God. St. Chrysost. de negatione Petri, introduces him, expostulating with our Saviour thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Did not I discover you before all others, and cried out, you are Christ the Son of the Living God? And Athanasius in his 4th Orat. contra Arrianos, speaking of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. At length Christ is confessed, first by Peter. then by all of them, that he is truly the Son of God. From this his first confession of Christ he is called by St. Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the foundation and beginning of Orthodoxy; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The great Mystagogus of the Church. St. Cyril in his 11th Catech. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Churches supreme Promulger. And St. Austin calls him, Apostolicus Confessor.  
After all this you are to take notice, that altho' I have said Peter was the first that knew Christ's Divinity, I have hitherto made a Comparison of him, only with the other Apostles; with Nathaniel, the Centurion, and the ordinary Persons Aboard-ship; not with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom I dare not affirm, or think to be ignorant of that Mystery after she was informed by the Embassy of the Archangel Gabriel, that she should Conceive, and bring forth the Blessed Jesus, who should be called The Son of God; the Son of the Most High. She, who was so highly honoured by every Person of the Holy Triad, could not but know the Mystery of the Trinity: She, whom the Holy Ghost by supervening did ingravidate: She, whom the Power of the Highest (God the Father) did Obumbrate: She, whose Virginal Womb was the Mansion and Mother-Pearl to God the Son, cannot rationally be supposed to be nescient of his Natural Filiation: Yet after all this, it seems as if all were not then revealed unto her, for she is said to wonder at what Old Simeon told her, which is a sign it was new unto her.  
Neither dare I exclude St. John the Baptist from the knowledge of this Mystery, he who was filled with the Holy Ghost from his Mother's Womb; even when he was in that Confinement, by his supernatural skipping and exulting may be said to have known him, to have saluted him, and to have paid him Tributary Homage: He, who heard a None from Heaven by a Celestial Herald, promulging him to be the Son of God: He, who saw the Holy Ghost effigiated in the form of a Dove, descending from above, and lighting upon him, may very well be imagined to have been instructed who he was.  
As for Joseph, Zachary and Elizabeth, Simeon and Ann the Prophetess, who were honoured with Revelations and Visions, filled with the Holy Ghost, and had the gift of Prophecy; if they did not fully know his Consubstantiality, they had at least some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some obscure Rays of it; and if they knew this imperfectly, they clearly knew he was the Saviour, the Shiloh, the Messiah.  
I shall add but one thing more on this Subject, and that is concerning the Devils knowing of Christ; and herein St. Austin is very positive, acknowledging but little difference 'twixt their Confession of Christ, and that of Peter's, as will appear by several passages in his Writings; Petrus dixit, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi: & Dominus, Beatus es Simon Barjona, etc. O Domine, hoc tibi dixerunt Daemons, quare ipsi non sunt beati; quia Daemones hoc dixerunt timore, Petrus amore, Hom. 6. And in his 10th Tract. in Epist. Johan. Hoc Petrus, hoc & Daemons, Tu es filius Dei vivi Sanctus Dei, eadem verba non idem animus; hoc Petrus cum dilectione dicebat, Daemons sine dilectione. In his 16th Serm. de verbis Apost. Hoc dixit Petrus, & audivit, Beatus est, hoc dixerunt Daemons & audierunt obmutescite una vox est, sed Dominus radicem interrogat non florem. Daemons dixerunt timendo, Petrus amando.  
Now, how the Devil did arrive to this Knowledge, Opinions are various; some Divines hold, that when he was a glorious Angel in Heaven, God revealed unto him, that his Son should assume Humane Nature, and that Man should be exalted to the Hypostatick Union with the WORD. Theophyl. says (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) The Thief stole this Knowledge from the Voice from Heaven. Augustin, Lib. 9 de Civit. Dei, says, Innotuit eis per quaedam suae virtutis effecta, by the operation of so many Miracles wrought by the Finger of God, which the Devil knew did transcend his and all Angelical Power. Others think he did not certainly know the Incarnation of the Son of God, but only suspected it. This is the Opinion of St. Chrysostom's Scholiast, who upon the Devils pretending to know Christ in St. Mark, by his saying, Scio qui scis, says, he meant by Scio, suspicor, conjector, opinor: And indeed, 'tis much to be questioned, whether he had firmam & certam notitiam adventûs filii Dei; for tho' it were granted, that he did hear the Oracle of God from Heaven; yet, on the other side, seeing Christ in the form and appearance of an ordinary Plebeian Person Poor, Low and Humble, and seeming to be in want of Bread; he in his Haughty, Proud Thoughts, pondering the Poverty and Humility of Christ Incarnate, did look on this his Lowliness and Condescension incompatible with his Majestic Divinity: This made him accost our Saviour to satisfy this his Doubt and Scruple, which did so much excruciate him, but he addresses himself as one doubting, Si filius es Dei? This is agreeable to the Sense of Theophyl. on Matt. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: On the other side, seeing him hungry, he began to doubt how the Son of God should be hungry, therefore he tempts him, that he might be certainly informed who he was.   

CHAP. IU. Concerning Christ's Reply to St. Peter 's Answer, Whether the Bishop of Rome 's Supremacy be grounded on Scripture? Of Christ's being the Rock; and of St. Peter 's being the Rock. Of St. Austin 's Interpretation of Super hanc Petram.  
HAving dispatched St. Peter's Solution to our Saviors Question, I shall next take Christ's Reply unto him in to Examination: And this, tho' it seems in itself to be the plainest and most intelligible thing imaginable, as not containing one difficult word in it; yet if taken with the Glosses which the Opposers of Peter's Supremacy have affixed to it, it may appear to be as knotty a place as any; as if the intent of Commentators were not to illustrate dark Texts, but to raise Dust and obscure Serene Passages; not to dilucidate what may seem dubious, and so expose the unquestioned Truth, but to make Scripture serviceable to that Interest and Design they are a moulding; of which unwarrantable dealing, this place is a most Pregnant Example, being by the various Interpretations of Men of different Persuasions rendered, perplexed, and impregnated with varieties of Queries. As whether, what Christ promised here, were promised to Peter, or to himself? If to Peter, whether to his Person, or to his Faith and Confession? Or if to his Person, whether to that alone, or equally to his fellow Apostles? Or if to all the Apostles, whether not to every Scholar and Disciple of Christ? Or again, whether to Peter personally only, or extendible to his Successors? These, in short, are the numerous offspring of Questions, which are raised out of the Fruitful Womb of this Text. As to the last of these Queries, whether what was said to Peter be extendible to his Roman Successors? I find Catholic Writers to hold the Affirmative, asserting thereby Papacy to be grounded on Holy Writ, and instituted by a Divine Irreversible Sanction of Christ in Peter. The Enemies to the Apostolic See, eagerly deny and oppose this Opinion. Calvin is herein very bold, his words are these, Quicquid accepit Petrus nihilo magis ad Papam pertinet quam ad Mahometam. Nihil Petro datum est his verbis quod non omnibus Evangelii Ministris perinde sit commune. Beza is very taunting, who tho' he denies the Pope to succeed him as he was called Peter, yet he frankly grants his Succession to him as he was called Satan. In hoc quidem cognomine successisse Antichristum libens concessero. Dr. Stillingfleet is very facetious in his Sermon preached on 5. Novemb. So dark and obscure (says he) so impertinent are the Proofs brought from Scripture of the Pope's Supremacy, that I may say, that Aristotle 's Politicks do prove it much more better than any Text in the Bible. Erasmus seems very ambiguous in his Comments on St. Matt. where he plays fast and lose, dictum indictum, says and unsays. First, he wonders any should apply those words to the Pope; then he says they do undoubtedly belong to him as Prince of Christians; his words are these, Miror esse qui hunc locum detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem in quem haud dubiè competunt in primis velut in Christianae fidei Principem, etc. Now that which induces me to believe, that if the Church were built on Peter, it was likewise built on his Successors, is, because Christ's main design of coming into the World being to purchase to himself a Church which was to continue to the consummation of the World; 'tis absurd to imagine this Church should have a visible Foundation and Head, for Peter's life-time, and to have none after him. This Power then and Office of his, was not conferred on his individual Person, so as to cease at his expiration, but was granted him as the Mystical Head of the whole; but so as to be transient, and survive in his Successors. And indeed this is the chief reason, why those that oppose the Power of Peter's Successor, strike first at his Supremacy, knowing that as the Admission of the one, infers the other, so the supplanting of the one undermines the other. Bishop Bramhal in his Schism Guarded, having affirmed, That all that Peter had, was a beginning of Unity, adds this, What Peter had the Pope may pretend a right to: That Christ did institute in the Peter the Origin of Unity is acknowledged by the Fathers, but that this Unity can be preserved without a Paramount Authority, will never be made out: And if Christ made the best provision imaginable for the preservation of Unity, Protestants have done all that is possible for its Violation.  
Dr. Whitaker says, he would not much value the granting Peter's being the Foundation, if the Catholics would not extend it to the Roman Bishops,  socios collegasque hujus dignitatis. Si Petrum (says he) creatum esse summum Pastorem Ecclesiae concedimus, id ipsum mox inferunt similiter ad omnes Petri Successores pertinere. This is the sole reason why his Supremacy is so warmly opposed; for its Enemies know very well, if that be granted, the Bishops of Rome, as his Heirs have a fair Title to it: This makes them exert all their cunning endeavours to defraud Peter of it; and then deluding themselves with an imaginary Conquest, as if they had subverted that Article, to infer, That if the Original had it not, the Derivative could not have it. With this false supposition Dr. Hammond imposes on himself, and on such as adhere to him, What Peter had not himself (says he) he could not devolve to any of his Successors, the Derivative Power in his Successors being like Water that flows from a Spring, apt to ascend no higher than the Fountain stood. But now if it be made appear, that Peter was by Christ invested with the Supremacy, it will be evident, that the Doctor built a ruinous Fabric upon a false Foundation. But to return to the Point, Whether the Bishops of Rome were concerned in what was said to St. Peter? To this I reply, That I find several of the Ancient Popes, to make use of these words, as if by virtue of them— the Roman See had its Primacy. Anaclet says, Sacrosancta Romana Apostolica Ecclesia non ab Apostolis, sed ab ipso Domino Salvatore nostro Primatum obtinuit, dicente, Tu es Petrus, etc. And Gelasius likewise in his Epistle to all Orthodox Bishops, Evangelicâ voce Domini, & Salvatoris nostri Primatum obtinuit, dicente, Tu es Petrus, etc. Alexander, Calixtus, and others, have Sayings to the same effect. These Men, I know, are rejected by Protestant Authors as Men partial in their own case; as you may see by Dr. Whitaker, who delivers his mind very plainly, Quid illi dicunt de sua sede nos non moramur; erant hi Pontifices Romani quibus insitum est, suam sedem, quantum possunt, ornare, & extollere ementitis privilegiis. This his Sense of their Actions I could by no means embrace, for it seemed to me very uncharitable to imagine, that those Religious Bishops, so nigh to the Apostolic Age, Persons of so strict Piety, and unspotted Conversation, living under horrid Persecutions, should conspire to advance their Sees by false Maxims and forged Privileges: But I am more inclinable to believe, that those great Priests, who were both Bishops and Martyrs, sealing their Religion with their Blood, were not only extraordinarily illuminated in the knowledge of the Gospel, but sincere in their Expositions and Applications of it. But besides the Testimonies of these Great Men, I find that Athanasius, together with the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais and Lybia, convened in the Alexandrine Council in their Epist. to Faelix to speak much to the same effect, Romana sedes, cui ab ipso Domino potestas ligandi & solvendi speciali est privilegio super alios concessa.  
I shall add but one thing more on this matter, and that is concerning the Opinion of St. Austin, and the Milevitan Council about the Pope's Power, from whence 'twas derived? They in a Letter to Innocentius, beg of him, that he would exert his Pastoral Power, in magnis membrorum Christi periculis, by repressing the Heretics, Caelestius and Pelagius infecting Africa and Palestine with their false Doctrine, in this case, why did they not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, or to the Primate of Africa? The Reason given, is, because they concluded those Heretics would with more ease yield to Innocentius, as to one whose Authority was drawn from the Scripture. Now this Power which they did desire him to show, was neither his Diocesan nor Patriarchal, but his Papal Power, for Palestine was no Limb of the Western, but Eastern Patriarchate, and consequently out of his Jurisdiction, as he was the Occidental Patriarch. This Power of his, which they desire him to make use of, they acknowledged to be drawn out of the Scripture, which cannot be made out, but by what was spoken by Christ to Peter: And this is the Method St. Bernard uses in his Book of Considerations to Eugenius, who having attributed high things to him, proves what he says, ex dictis Domini: I shall now come to take a view of the words, which the Fathers, in the Milevitan Council, (of which Austin was one) used to Innocentius, which in Epist. 92. of St. Austin I find were these, Arbitramur adjuvante misericordiâ D. N. J. Christi Authoritati sanctitatis tuae, de sacrarum literarum authoritate depromptae facilius eos qui tam perversa & perniciosa sentiunt cessuros; The words are very plain, and clearly discovering their Opinion, that his Authority was from Scripture; but because this is a truth that must be suppressed, 'Tis very pleasant to see how 'tis depraved by Expositors, Cedent authoritati tuoe de scripturarum authoritate depromptae, that is, says Chamier, Tibi veram doctrinam a Scriptures expromenti. But the intent of these words is not that Innocentius should make them yield, by quoting of places out of the Scripture, and so confute their Heresies (that the African Bishops themselves, or any other might have done if they had pleased) but by virtue of his Supreme, Ecclesiastic Authority, to which the Fathers imagined these Heretic would more readily submit as grounded on Scripture: This is the  Sense of those words, but I shall add no more on this Matter, but confine my following Discourse chief to St. Peter's Supremacy.  
First, You must understand, that I do believe, as firmly as you do, that Christ is the Primary and Principal Foundation of the Church; the Lapis summus & angularis, a nullo alio dependens, the Lapis fundamentalis, cui totum innititur aedificium, on whom, not only every true Christian, but the Apostles, and Peter himself is Mystically superedified, as St. Austin affirms, Petra erit Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus Petrus: And accordingly St. Cyril in his Notes on Isaias, Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For Christ is the Foundation, and unmovable Basis of all, containing and strengthening all, to the end they be well supported, for we are all of us built on him. Thus you may perceive, that we do not go about to despoil our Saviour of his due Honour, and invest Peter with it (as you traduce us with) for if he be the Rock of Church, much more Christ is; to deny which would be Antichristian. But Peter is not hereby excluded, notwithstanding this, but is likewise the Rock, but in Subordination and Inferiority to Christ. And thus St. Basil, Hom. 28. de Paen. makes this distinction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For if Peter be a Rock, he is not such a Rock as Christ, sed sicut Petrus Petra est, whereas Christ is really, and of himself a Rock unmoveable, Petrus autem propter Petram. Thus I conceive Christ to be the Primordial, Absolute, and Independent Rock; the Petra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by virtue of his own Strength Authority and Divinity, whereas Peter is a Rock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Subordinate, Vicarious, Ministerial, by Commission and Derivation from him, laid by Christ's own Hands the glorious Architect of his Spiritual Fabric next to himself, as Theophyl. observes on Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; introducing Christ speaking to St. Peter, This thing belongs to you, (says he) as one who after me are the Rock and Strength of the Church. Hence you may easily perceive, that things Subordinate combat not one with another, but suppose one another; therefore to say Christ is the Foundation of the Church, and Peter is the Foundation, are no repugnant duelling Propositions, but friendly and compatible: And thus (as it was observed by Cardinal Perron) Moses saying, That God guided the Israelites in their Travels from Egypt to the Promised Land; and Stephen affirming Moses to have conducted them in the Wilderness, are not Contrariant or Antistoichal one to the other, God doing it by the strength of his Omnipotent Arm, and Moses by Order and Authority from him as his Lieutenant: With the same facility this our Discrepancy may be sodered: for I affirm not Peter to be Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel aliud, from Christ, but Fundamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel alterum, not alterius generis, as in opposition to Christ but Christo subalternum; for as Salmeron well observed, Respectu Christi non est fundamentum, sed aedificatio, nec caput, sed membrum; praecipuum, tamen: respectu nostri, & caput, & fundamentum: This distinction of a Principal and Inferior Foundation, you must allow to be deducible from St. Paul, or else you must grant a Contradiction: For as in one place, he affirms that Christ is the only Foundation, and that no other can be laid: He in another place calls the Prophets and Apostles Foundations: Now this difference cannot be reconciled, but by admitting a Primary and Secondary Foundation. Hence 'tis that Austin in Psalm 86. entitles Christ the Foundation of Foundations. Fandamentum Christus primum & maximum, etc. Si Sacramenta cogites, Christus sanctus sanctorum; si gregem subditum cogites, Christus pastor pastorum; si fabricam cogites, Christus fundamentum fundamentorum. Thus it seems to be in the Church, as in the State: For as in the State, notwithstanding God by his Omnipotency and Wisdom, tempers and disposes all things as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: Yet has he established here on Earth Principacies, into whose Hands he has committed the Sword, whom we are in duty obliged to obey; so tho' Christ be the Moderator and Foundation of the Church, and does rule and direct it by his Internal Influxes, yet has he established a Visible Monarchick Government in it, with which he invested St. Peter, propagating it to his Successors. Now tho' Christ did build his Church on Peter, he himself is the main Basis of the Structure; and as Christ is the Head of the Church, God is the Head of Christ, who by his Omnipotent Power supports and sustains the vast pile of the Catholic Church.  
I shall next give you some Testimonies of the Fathers, who notwithstanding their affirming Christ to be the Rock, disrobe not St. Peter of that Illustrious Title, but ascribe it to him Participatively, Tertul. Lib. Contra Marc. Christus Petrum ita vocat, quia lapis, & Petra ipse est, itaque affectavit charissimo discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare.  
St. Hierom on 16 Hier. Non solum Christus Petra est, sed & Apostolo Petro donavit, ut vocaretur Petra: And in his Comments Abdiae, Ipsa Petra Petro donavit ut Petra sit.  
August. de Cath. Petri: Consortium meretur nominis qui consertium meretur & operis.  
St. Ambrose, Recte quia Petra Christus, Simon nuncupatus est Petrus, ut qui cum Domino fidei societatem habeat cum Domino habeat nominis Dominici societatem.  
Thus you may discern, that our Saviors being the Rock, hinders not Peter from being so; neither doth Peter's being the Rock exclude Christ from being so: This may be manifested out of St. Basil 28th Hom. de Poenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For Christ gives away his Dignities, not as if he were deprived of them, but as retaining what he bestows. Thus he is Light, yet he says to the Disciples, ye are the light of the World, he is a Priest, and he makes Priests. He is a Sheep, yet he says to his Disciples, Behold I send you as Sheep amidst Wolves: He is a Rock, and he makes a Rock. 'Tis very observable here, that this Father acknowledges Christ to have made the other Apostles, Lights, Sheep and Priests, but he mentions but one Rock, which is Peter. This Criticism may be observed in St. Ambrose, Lib. 6. Lucae. Ego sum inquit lux mundi, & id tamen quo ipse gloriatur Discipulis suis nomen indulsit, vos est is lux mundi. Ego sum panis vivus: Et nos omnes sumus unus panis. Petra erat Christus, etiam Discipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiam non negavit. Here Christ is said to make many Lights and Loaves, but no more than one Rock. St. Hierom likewise accords herein in his Comments on Abdias, Ipsa Petra Petro donavit, ut sit Petra. Pastor quoque bonus Apostolis Pastorum largitus est nomen, ipse Salvator Apostolos suos mundi esse voluit Salvatores. The rest of the Apostles are here called pastors & Salvatores, but not Petrae.  
My next Remark shall be, That whereas St. Basil says, that Christ bestows his Dignities on his Disciples. St. Hierom says, Quodcunque dicitur de eo, servis tribuit, ut dicatur. St. Amb. Lib. 6. Lucae. restrains this, Magna Christi gratia, qui omnia prope vocabula sua Discipulis suis donavit. St. Austin expresses the Title which Christ reserved to himself, which is OSTIUM, as appears in his 47th Tract. on John, Petrus Pastor, Paulus Pastor, caeteri Apostoli pastors, & boni Episcopi pastors, OSTIUM vero nemo nostrum se dicit, hoc sibi ipse proprium tenuit quà intrant oves. Now the Reason you allege to cut off Peter from being the Rock, because Christ is called so, is so languid, that should it be admitted as forcible, by the same Rule, none should be called Light, because Christ is called Light; none Magister, because Christ is called so; none Pastor, because he is called Pastor bonus; none Bishop, because Christ is called Episcopus animarum; and thus you may discover with what facility you might be stranded on your own shallows.  
But before I bid adieu to this Point, I shall bring St. Augustine's Exposition on this place to a scrutiny; for I perceive you court him Cap in Hand, and gripe his Gloss as fast as the Talons of a dying Man: And herein you conspire with Calvin, and such as are of his Kidney, who by their choicest Chemistry endeavour to extract some false Deductions injurious to Peter's Primacy.  
I shall take the words altogether as I find them in his Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Retract. Dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro, quoth in eo tanquam in Petra fundata est Ecclesia, qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus Beatissimi Ambrosii de Gallo-gallinaceo, etc. Sed scio me postea Saepissime sic exposuisse, ut super hanc Petram, intelligeretur quam confessus est Petrus, non enim dictum est illi, tu es Petra, sed tu es Petrus, Petra autem erat Christus harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. These are the celebrated words which you hug so closely, tho' I must confess, I have not penetrancy enough to discover wherein they can be serviceable to you, for upon a just scanning them, they appear to be a neutral and Equilibrious Testimony swaying to neither side: For after St. Austin had acknowledged he had formerly very often interpreted, Hanc Petram on Peter, he here seems to Interpret it on Christ, but does not determine which of these two Interpretations is the true one; but in the conclusion refers it to the arbitrament and option of the Reader, to choose which he pleases; so with the same Licence of St. Austin, I may Interpret the words on Peter, as well as you do on Christ: Then you are to take notice, that by this varying from his former, frequent Explication, he deviated from St. Ambrose, who Baptised him, and was his Tutor: But this is not all, for 'tis apparent, he changed his former Exposition upon a mistake occasioned through his Ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriack Tongue, as is concluded by Learned Men; the reason of this his alteration, he makes to be, because Christ did not say to Peter, Tu es Petra, but tu es Petrus, as he confesses himself, he thereby imagining Petra to be the Primitive word, Rock, and Petrus the Derivative Rocky; whereas in the Syriack which our Saviour spoke, and in the Hebrew which St. Matt. wrote, there is no difference in the Termination, but 'tis, thou art Cepha, and on this Cepha, etc. and thou art Kipha, and on this Kiphas: Now that I have not injured St. Austin in affirming him to be no good Hebrecian, you may hear what he says himself in his 131 Epist. Neque enim ex hebraeâ lingua quam ignoro, potuit etiam numeros interpres exprimere, etc. That this mistake of St. Austin was originated from this Spring, will appear more evident by what he writes, Serm. 13. in Evang. Matt. Petra erat nomen principale, ideo Petrus a Petra non Petra a Petro, quomodo non è Christiano Christus, sed Christianus a Christo: Here he most clearly makes Petrus a Derivative of the word Petra, which is a manifest error in him, as I shall hereafter evince: Now that both Peter's Name and Authority was derived from Christ the Principal Petra is granted: But I deny it to be a Derivative of the word Petra; for as Jansenius observes, Atticis Petrus & Petra idem sunt, Petrus non sonat idem quod saxeus, than it should have been Petreius, sed idem quod saxum: And accordingly, Baronius, Hac ratione dici potest nomen Petri, ut Petra, derivatum a Christo, non tamen derivatum nominis Christi.  
The next thing I shall say concerning St. Austin's Exposition, is, That as in his Retract. he does not condemn the Opinion of the Churches being built on Peter, so in other places he asserts it, as in festo Cathedrae Sancti Petri, Petrum fundamentum Ecclesiae Dominus nominavit, & ideo dignè fundamentum hoc, Ecclesia colit, supra quod Ecclesiastici aedificii altitudo consurgit. Et de Jejuniis Priscorum, Petrus Apostolorum caput, Caeli Janitor, Ecclesiae fundamentum: And Serm. 124. de Temp. Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite curat Ecclesiae, in ipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem, in ipsa confessionis Christi crepidine, in ipso immobilis fidei fundamento, in Petro scilicet. I shall add no more of this import, for I hasten to conclude this Point, and shall only inform you, That St. Austin did not refer it to the election of the Reader, to believe or disbelieve Peter and his Successors to be Heads of the Church, but whether or no their Power was signified by these words, Super hanc Petram, etc. For in most perspicuous terms he acknowledges in several places of his Writings Peter's Supremacy, and declares them wretched and Heretics that disown him to be the Rock: Thus Agon. Christ. he calls them Miseri dum in Petro Petram non intelligunt. Et contra 5 Haeres. he says, Neque Haeretici intelligunt in Petro Petram, & datas illi claves: Here in plain terms he calls you, and such as you are Heretics: But that which must gag you, and make you as silenced a Minister as if the Wolves had first seen you, is, That he makes the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to be the Rock, Contra partem Donati. Numerate Episcopus ab ipsa sede Beati Petri, ipsa est Petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. Having thus fully satiated my curiosity concerning St. Austin's Opinion on this point, I shall now advance to encounter your following Arguments.   

CHAP. V Concerning St. Peter's Faith or Confession being the Rock. And how those Fathers, who Interpret that to be the Rock, exclude not his Person.  
THe next stratagem to thrust out St. Peter's Person, is your making his Faith or Confession to be the Rock, and not his Person; and now I am to enter into a large Field of Matter, where I may justly expect to meet with varieties of Intricacies which will appear insuperable; and I am sensible, that I shall find it a very difficult task to evolve myself out of them; but having embarked in this troubleosme Matter, I shall not now dastardly recede, but the more vigorous opposition I meet with, contra audentior ibo.  
Those Fathers that assert Faith to be the Rock, take it not a part from Peter's Person, but as inherent in him, they take his Faith as conjoined with his Person, or else his Person confessing the Faith; so when they call Faith the Rock, they take not these words simply and absolutely, secundum se, but respectively with a personal relation to Peter, they either take Faith cum aggregato Petri, or else they take Peter, cum adjuncto fidei; so their Sense of the thing is plainly this, upon thee, confessing me, will I build my Church: So neither his Person alone, nor his Faith alone, but both conjoined make up this Rock. Peter without Faith, had been unqualified for such an Office, and Faith taken separate, had been incongruous: For the Foundation, and the rest of the Building ought to be Congenial. The Church is a Congregation of Men, as of Living Stones; so the Rock, which is the Foundation of the Church ought to be a Man strengthened and supported by Divine Assistance. Fundamentum debet cohaerere cum aedificio, sicut caput cum membris; si fundamentum est ipsa fides, cum sit res mere spiritualis, non conveniret cum Ecclesiâ, quae ex hominibus corpore sensa & ratione constantibus conflatur. So I conclude, that as Peter is not the Foundation without Faith; so neither Faith taken solitarily, or residing in any other Subject than in him; but his Faith in and with his Person, as St. Chrysost. elegantly phrases it on Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, firm as a Rock in Faith, or, Immobili inconcussâ firmitate solidato in fide. It was observed by Cardinal Perron, that the Ancient Fathers upon the Arians oppugning the Divinity of our Saviour, finding no place in the Scripture more fit to manifest Christ to be the connatural Son of God, than this most noble Confession of Peter, did much exalt its Dignity, but with no intention in the least of denying the Church to be built on his Person, but looked on this his Confession to be the causal, and his Person to be the formal Foundation of the Church. Thus the Fathers sometimes affirming Peter's Faith to be the Rock, and sometimes himself, are not contrary Expositions excluding or extinguishing, but including one the other, they meaning hereby, the Church to be built causally on Peter's Confession, and formally on his Person, his Confession being the Motive which induced our Saviour to build his Church on his Person: This does approximate very nigh to Maldonat's Sense, Commodissima interpretatio mihi videtur, si dicamus eos dicere voluisse super fidem & confessionem Petri Ecclesiam aedificatam, id est, super Petrum propter fidem & confessionem: hujusmodi phrasibus vulgo utimur, ut dicamus in unius hominis fide fundatam esse rempublicam, i. e. in uno homine propter ipsius fidem: So that to affirm the Church to be built on Peter's Faith, is not to bar and disclude his Person, (no more than it was St. Hieroms meaning to deny Peter's walking on the Sea, when he said in his 61 Epist. ad Pammach. Super aquas non ambulasse corpus, sed fidem:) But to signify the cause why it was superedified on him, there being no discordancy 'twixt affirming the Church built upon Peter's Faith, and on Peter confirmed in Faith. Hence Cyril Lib. 4. de Trinit. calls this Rock, The most unshaken and firm Faith of Peter, combining both the causal and formal Foundation together in a friendly League, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I shall now, pursuant to what I have already laid down, take a full survey of those Fathers who affirm Peter's Faith to be the Rock, and see whether they thereby design to exclude his Person. The first you quote is Hilarius, Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est: But that he did not by saying so, lock out his Person, is evident by his Writings; as on Psalm 131. enarrat. Petrum, cui superius Claves Regni Caelorum dederat, super quem aedificaturus erat Ecclesiam, etc. And Lib. 6. de Trinit. B. Petrus aedificationi Ecclesiae subjacet. And again, O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum. And on Psalm 131. Petrum primum Dei confessorem Ecclesiae fundamentum. The next you cite is Theophyl. Haec confessio, quam confessus es, fundamentum erit credentium; but that he did not except Peter's Person is manifest; for speaking of Christ rewarding his Confession, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Our Lord recompenseth Peter, giving him a great reward, promising him, the Church should be built on him. And on Luke 22. he introduces our Saviour, calling him, The next Rock of the Church after himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I find you to cite no more Authors on this Subject, so I shall take my leave of your Papers for some short time, and make an Excursion to other Writers, who quote more of the Fathers on this Point. This Digression I hope will be pardonable in me, whose design in writing, is not only for your confutation, but for the investigation of Truth and my own satisfaction.  
I find St. Chrysostom to be much contended for, and insisted on by your chiefest Champions, as a great Assertor that the Church was built on Peter's Faith, and not on his Person, insomuch that Dr. Whitaker having cited a Saying out of him, countenancing this Opinion, drolls upon Card. Bellarmine, saying, Ecquid tibi Jesuita Chrysostomus arrisit? But it is withal to be observed, that altho' in his 55th Hom. on St. Matth. he makes Confession or Faith to be the Rock, yet he does not seclude Peter's Person, but attributes as great things to it as to his Faith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Christ raises Peter's thoughts higher, making him a Shepherd. Here he acknowledges his Pastoral Power; then he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He committed into the Hands of a mortal Man the Power of all things in Heaven. After this he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; God set Jeremy over one Nation, but Peter over all the World. Here he confesses his universal Jurisdiction. As for his saying in his Serm. de Rentecost, That Christ did not build his Church upon a Man, but upon Faith. I conceive he means there, upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a bare naked Man; for we grant, that Christ did not build his Church, simpliciter super personam Petri, ut Hominis nudi, sed fide solidâ Christum confitentis; as on one irradiated by the illapse of a Celestial Beam darted from God the Father; as on one strengthened by the Mission and Power of the Holy Ghost; as on one for the Indeficiency of whose Faith Christ composed a particular Prayer, or to use St. Chrysostom's own words, to explain his meaning, as on one who was rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; , unshaken, invariable, fixed, firm, rooted in Faith, hardened, and stronger than a Rock in Faith. This Explication must be admitted, or else you must accuse him of the greatest incogitancies, and contradictions imaginable, opposing Chrysostom to Chrysostom. I shall now insert as many Say of his, to Broad-seal, and Authenticate what I have here asserted, as I have observed in perusing his Works, manifestly to evince, that tho' he interpreted Faith to be the Rock, yet he did thereby not intent any injury to Peter's Person.  
In his Hom. ad eos qui scandalizati sunt: He calls, him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Prince of the Apostles, the Foundation of the Church, the chief of the Society of the Disciples. On the 50th. Psalms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter the Pillar of the Church, the Foundation of Faith, the Head of the Apostolic Quire.  
Hom. 4 de verbis Isaiae, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter the Foundation of the Church, the desperate lover of Christ.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter the chief of the Apostles, the Mouth of the Disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Firmitude of Faith, the Foundation of Confession, the Oecomenical Fisherman.  
In his 9th Hom. de Paenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; When I say Petrus, I mean a solid Petra, an unmoveable Foundation, the Great Apostle, the chief of the Disciples.  
Hom. Petri & Eliae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That Peter, the top of the Apostles, that  Foundation, that solid Rock, that Prince of the Church.  
In Psalm 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Hear what he says to Peter, the Pillar, the Foundation, who therefore was called Peter, because he was petrified in Faith.  
Hom. in Petrum & Paulum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Hail Peter, the Rock of the Faith, the Foundation of Orthodoxy.  
De abnegat. Petri. he introduces St. Peter apologizing for himself to Christ; Did not I first promulge you, crying out, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God, wherefore you accepting of my Testimony, did declare me Blessed, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) and didst entitle me the Rock of the Church, saying unto me, Thou are Peter, etc.  
Hom. 28. de Paenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter having said, Thou art the Son of the Highest God, had this Answer, Thou art Peter, etc. Thus Peter said, therefore he was made the Foundation of the Church.  
By these Testimonies it evidently appears, what great respect, and what signal Honour he ascribed to Peter's Person, calling him, not only the Pillar and Foundation of the Church, but the Prince of the Apostles. And if in some part of his Works out of reverence to his noble Confession, he affirms the Church to be built on it (and in one Sense it may be said so) yet he robs not his Person of this Honour, but attributes as much to that as to his Confession: I may add more, for if he affirms his Confession, or Faith to be this Foundation, advancing that to so high an eminence, he exalts his Person to an higher Battlement and Altitude, in making him the Foundation of this Faith, by his calling him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Foundation and Firmitude of Faith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Foundation of Confession; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Foundation and Basis of Orthodoxy. I have expatiated myself at large upon this Great Father, not only to inform myself of his true and genuine Sense in this Point, but also to unveil those Imposturous Gulleries which several misguiding Writers obtrude on their easy Readers under the Umbrage of this eminent Author, by depraving his Sense, and contorting his meaning, which myself have been too sensible of, being before I had read him, often imposed on by their plausible Quotations out of him.  
The next Author I shall discuss, will be Epiphanius, who in his 39th Haeres. says thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Upon this Rock of firm Faith I will build my Church. Now that he by this Saying does not exclude Peter's Person, is evident by his other Say; as first in his Ancorat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For it did become the Prince of the Apostles, that Solid Rock on which the Church of God was built, etc. And Adversus Catharos, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The holy Peter, the highest top of the Apostles, who became to us indeed a firm Rock, founding the Faith of our Lord. And in the same place he calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The firm Rock of the building, the Foundation of the House of God. In his Ancorat. he says thus of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; who was assisted by the Father, in laying a firm Foundation of Faith. And in the same place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; In all respects Faith was established and confirmed in him.  
St. Cyril, who in his 4th Book de Trinit. says, Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa & firma Discipuli fides, etc. Does not take his Faith apart from his Person, but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith, Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan. In Petro tanquam in Petra & Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est: And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan. Nec Simon fore nomen, sed Petrum dixit, vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam. And on the First of St. Johan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Upon him he destined to build his Church.  
My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point, whom I find Lib. de Incarnate. Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church; his words are these, Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum; non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est, quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt, sed confessio vincit Infernum. These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker, that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine, he triumphantly cries out, Audin' Jesuita? Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation, the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered: For first, no Catholic does affirm the Church to be built on Peter's Flesh, so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas does the Heavens, by virtue of a strong robust Back, and a pair of broad Shoulders; neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul, but on his Person, consisting of Body and Soul. Next I shall prove out of Ambrose, that altho' he calls Faith the Foundation, he does not deny Peter's Person to be so likewise, as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes, wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae: And in Lib 4. Lucae. Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet, turbatur illa quae Judam habet, quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est. Et de Incarn. Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris, imo prae caeteris, & ideo fundamentum dicitur. And Lib. 4. De fide. Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit.  
St. Basil, tho' he is pleased to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; on 2d. Isaiae, The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock, because it is firmly rooted in Faith; Yet does he not offer to depose his Person, as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him.  
The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peter's Person.  
St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel, Apostolus Petrus, super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit. And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te: And in the same place, Petro illam beatitudinem, & potestatem & aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam.  
St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person, Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata. De bono patientiae. Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia. 52. Epist. Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat, super quem posuit & fundavit Ecclesiam. De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus, super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam, & unde unitatis originem instituit, etc. Epist. 70. Baptisma unum, Spiritus Sanctus unus, & una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis & ratione fundata, in the same Epistle.  
Tertullian, who in his Book de Pudicitia, says concerning Peter, In ipso Ecclesia extructa, is pleased to explain himself thus, id est, per ipsum. In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peter's Faith, but on his Person, Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter, hoc Petro confer, super te, inquit, edificabo Ecclesiam meam, tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors, being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresy of Montanus. And in his Prescriptions, Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae, Petra dicitur: And again, in Monog. Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum: Monogamum praesumo, per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est.   

CHAP. VI Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations. Of Peter's new Name given him by Christ. Peter the Rock of the Church. Of origen's Interpretation: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one. The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place.  
MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles, whom (to lessen and extenuate St. Peter's Glory) you would equalise with him; that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Foundations: I concede to you, Oecomenius on the Apocalypse, gives the reason of it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Because they laid the first groundwork of Faith in Christ: And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta, ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae; They in reference to their Apostolic Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World: In relation to their Doctrine, they were equally Orthodox and Infallible: And what concerned their Writings (they being directed and influenced by the same Spirit) they were alike Canonical; and what appertained to the Government of all other Christians, they were equally Pastors, Heads, and Rectors: And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo (as St. Hierom says) on all of them. Now notwithstanding, they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects, St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promised to build his Church, which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever, but even of the Apostles themselves: If they were Foundations, so was St. Peter and the Prophets; if they were Foundations, they were Sub Petro & post Petrum; whom our Saviour to preserve Unity, chose out of the Apostolic College, and with his own Hands laid next to himself, as Theophyl. affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church, will appear evident, if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him, to build his Church on him, upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity, which the other Apostles, till they had learned it of him, were ignorant of: this I have already proved: Now what our Saviour replied to this his Confession, was vicissim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reciprocally directed to him only (the Pronouns tu & tibi excluding plurality and partnership) not only as an Approbation, but as a reward, which I have already evidenced, and shall here add a further confirmation, Chrysost. Hom. 28. de Paenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Peter having said, thou art the Son of the highest God, had this in answer, Thou art a Rock: And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Thus Peter said, etc. therefore he was made the Foundation of the Church. Cyril. Dial. 4th. de Trin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For if B. Peter was thought worthy of such eminent rewards for his confessing Christ to be the Son of the Living God, etc. And in the same Dialogue he calls our Saviors Reply and Promise to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A requital of his true Explication of him. Now if Peter were not this peculiar Rock, on whom Christ in a more signal and remarkable manner promised to build his Church; and if he were not the Person to whom our Saviour in a more transcendent Sense promised the donation of the Keys, I cannot see where the reward of his true Confession lies, or wherein the Prerogative of his Revelation consists; or indeed, to what purport his name was changed. So the Argument of my next Discourse shall be upon what account he had a new Name given him, which I judge not unworthy to be discussed and penetrated: For as St. Chrysost. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: De nominum mutatione.  
When God gives any one a Name, we ought to use all diligence to find out the reason of it; for God does nothing in vain, but every thing with that Wisdom that is becoming him.  
Thus we see it was not unusual with God in the Old Testament, to impose new Names on Persons; as is visible in Abraham, Jacob, and Sarah; and that new Name was always apposite, correspondent, and adequate to some egregious design or employment, which God did thereby indigitate. Thus it was with Peter, who had a new Name given him proper and suitable to that high Design our Saviour had destined him to. Hence St. August. 7. Tract. Johan. Evang. says, Magnum, quia mutavit ei nomen, & fecit de Simone Petrum: And again in the same place, Si hoc ante Petrus vocaretur, non ita videres mysterium Petrae, & putares casu eum sic vocari, non providentiâ Dei, ideo voluit eum aliud prius vocari, ut ex ipsâ commutatione nominis Sacramenti vivacitas commendaretur: Here St. Austin acknowledges an occult Mystery latent in this word, which our Saviour in Matt. 16. is pleased to unriddle; for in the first of St. John he gives him a Prediction of a new Name, Tu vocaberis Cephas, which is all one with Petrus: In Mark 3. he has the imposition of his new Name, Imposuit Simoni nomen Petri: And in Matt. 16. he has the meaning and Explication of it, Thou art Peter, and on this Peter; or, Thou art a Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church: Here by an ingenious allusion to the Name he uncurtained the abstruse Sense of it. This pleasant alluding to words, I find practised by several good Authors. Thus Athanasius calls Hosius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Chrysost. alludes to Euodius, calling him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to Dorcas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to Manes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Nazianz. accordingly on Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus St. Cyprian alludes to Novatus, Novarum rerum Cupidus. Irenaeus nominis sui correspondens etymo, id est, pacis studiosus; And Valentinus, as Vopiscus relates, was wont to say of Probus that he was Vir sui nominis; the same may be said of Peter, who, as his Name did signify a Rock, so he was really an egregious surpassing one. For Christ changing his Name, and making this common Appellative of Rock to become his proper Name, is an evident sign, that to him, by way of eminency above the rest appertained the thing, whereof he alone bore the Name and Title. Now there can be no reason assigned, why Christ of all his Disciples, changed only Peter's Name for a Name that did denote a Rock, but that by this Antonomastical Appropriation of that word to him, he did destiny him to be in a more peculiar excelling manner THE ROCK, on whom he would build his Church. Hence St. Basil adversus Eunomium says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Appellations are indications of properties, which decipher and charactarize every one. Now I find that there be two especial Reasons why Peter had this new Name, One is for his firm Faith; this is acknowledged by Chrysost. in Paralypt. demissum per Tecta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was called Peter, because he had an unshaken and steady Faith.  
In Inscriptionem Act. Apost. he gives this reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He was not called Peter, because he raised the Dead, nor because he cured the lame Man, but he inherited this Name, because by his Confession he revealed his true and genuine Faith, Christ saying unto him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; In illud Paulus vocatur, Peter had that Name given him for his Virtue's sake, Christ placing in his very Name a demonstration of the firmitude of his Faith, that his very Name might be to him as a perpetual monitor, putting him in mind of his Solidity.  
But the chiefest reason why he was called so, was, because by that Name Christ discovered his Intentions of building his Church on him.  
This is St. Cyrils' Sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was by an adapt and congruous word called Peter, by Christ the Rock, because he did intent to found his Church on him.  
And accordingly Origen in his Comments on St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was denominated and called Peter from his Stability and Solidity which was fit for the Office designed him.  
Thus St. Hierom on Matt. 16. says, Simoni, Petri largitus est nomen, ac secundum metaphoram Petrae, recte ei dicitur aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te. And accordingly Hilarius, O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum: And Tertull. de prescript. Latuit aliquid Petrum, aedificandae Ecclesia Petram dictum.  
It will not now be unseasonable to observe, that not one of the Apostles in Divine Writ are called Petrus or Petra, but Peter, that name being by our Saviour attributed to him solely, and so ascribed to him, as to become his proper name; this is not undeserving of an Asterisk; the other Apostles are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word is communicable as well to Peter as to any of the rest; but he besides that name common to him with the other, had his new name Petrus appropriate to himself. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Foundation in general, it may of Wood, Wooll-sacks, Straw, Hay, or any such evanid Matter, and accordingly the Sees of the other Apostles have been detriumphed, stooping to the Insulting Conqueror, and yielding to the pollutions of undermining Heresy; but Peter signifies such a Foundation as is fixed on an inexpugnable Rock: So our Saviour may here be said to imitate that wise Architect (he himself speaks of) in building his Spiritual edifice on a Rock, and on such an one as is not only able to repel the foaming Surges of the aspiring Sea, but can walk on the back of its towering Waves, Solidam carnem super liquentis elementi terga suspendens. A Rock , planted with an eternal Root. A Rock able to evacuate all the Plots of Hell's Divan, and naufragate all the lurid designs of empoisoned Heretics.  
I shall next produce the Say of some Fathers, to prove the Church more eminently built on Peter, than on any of the other Apostles. The first shall be St. Hierom, who on Isaias 2. having compared them to Mountains, says, Super unum montium Christus fundat Ecclesiam & loquitur ad eum, dicens, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. But that which must needs confound all the Enemies to St. Peter and his Successors, but such as have their Face cased in Triple Brass, is, that besides his owning him to be the Rock, he calls his Cathedra at Rome likewise so; in his Epistle to Damasus, Ego beatitudini tuae, id est, (says he) Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam esse Ecclesiam scio: This Saying of this great Father left a deep incision in my Mind, and being willing to find out a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to heal it, I repaired to Dr. Whitaker, who thus informed me, Cathedra Petri non successionem Pontificum, sed Petri fidem significat. This appeared to me to be a mere shuffle, for I knew that that Father did in his 57th Epist. to Damasus acknowledge him to possess both fidem & sedem Petri: From this Doctor I went to Dr. Stillingfleet, expecting in his Rational Account to find something that might be proportionate to that Title, but I found myself likewise there defeated of my desired satisfaction: His words were these, This Testimony seems big and high at first, and I shall not impute these expressions, either to St. Hierom 's heat, or flattery, altho' it looks the more suspicious, because at that time he had so great a pique against the Eastern Bishops; and that those words are contained in a complimental address to Damasus, because looked on as a Roman Christened in that Church, he addresses himself to Damasus.  
Here the Doctor pretending not to ascribe these words either to St. Hierom's heat or flattery, doth obliquely perstringe him as guilty of both. As for the pique which he says Hierom had with the Eastern Bishops; I question whether the Doctor can prove he had any more disgust against them than what might arise from their Errors and Schism; so he seeing their Contentions and Divisions thought it the safest way to break off Communion with them, and apply himself to St. Peter See. Their Schism he declares in these words in the abovementioned Epistle, Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus indiscissam Domini Tunicam & desuper textam minutatim per frusta discerpit. After this he discovers the true Doctrine of the Western, and the Errors of the Oriental Church; the former he affirms to have preserved incorruptam Patrum haereditatem; and that they did return Dominici seminis puritatem centeno fructu; but that in the latter, the good Seed did degenerate in Lolium avenasque: Then he says, In occidente Sol Justitiae; in orient Lucifer: vos aurea vasa; hic lignea, testacea: These are high Encomiums of the Roman Church; but now after all this, the main reason that obliged him to associate himself in Communion with Damasus was, because he as Heir to St. Peter, sat in his Cathedra, on which he acknowledged the Church to be built as St. Austin did confess the Succession of Bishops from Peter to be the invincible Rock) so here is neither flattery nor compliment as the Doctor would fain shift it off with, it being very irrational to imagine, that that Great Father would make use of either in matters of Faith which concerned his Soul's Salvation. And if the Doctor has a faculty to deprave such a plain place as this is, no passage in the Fathers will be able to resist the cunning of such contortions.  
My next proof is out of St. Cyprian, Ecclesia quae una est, super unum qui claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata; and accordingly, speaking of Peter's See, he says, Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta .  
My Third Proof is out of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You see that amongst all the Disciples of Christ, who were sublime, and worthy to be elected, this Man Peter is called the Rock, and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church.  
St. Basil in his 6th Book against Eunomius gives the reason why the Church was superstructed on him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built upon him.  
I might in reason imagine, that what I have already wrote, should be a sufficient Collyrium to open your ceiled Eyes, and fetch off those Scales which have obstructed your visive faculty, that you might now discernibly see the inanity of your effete, and barren endeavours in assaying to purloin from St. Peter that inherent and inseparable Honour of being the Rock of the Church. I do not see any thing to the contrary, but that your Objections are solved, and that in no evasive manner: Having performed thus much, I was preparing to advance forward, when I found myself on a sudden obliged to make a short halt upon my discovering a small Quotation of yours out of Origen, Petra est quisquis Christi Discipulus. But pray do you not think that you have sufficiently sullied yourself with guilt, by endeavouring to disrobe St. Peter of his Illustrious Dignities, without committing Sacrilege on the whole Apostolic College, by robbing them likewise of the Title of Foundations of the Church, and by cantonizing it out to every Christian? Must Peter be dismounted, and the rest of the Twelve by a levelling principle have equal shares, and after all this must every Christian Scholar come in for a joint Dividend? Had I not a Clue more unerring than that of Ariadne, I could not possibly disinlabyrinth myself from these sinuous wind. First, Christ is the Rock; then Faith and Confession; then all the Apostles: but now every Christian, and who not? so Peter the right Heir be by a Bill of Exclusion shut out. Amongst your choice of Interpretations on this Text summoned on purpose to stave off Truth, I was very well pleased to see the generality of Catholics to keep themselves to one Interpretation, which is, of Peter's Person and his Successors; and indeed, Truth is but one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Truth is single, and not split into many pieces, Chrysost. 48. Hom Matt. whereas Error is multiform, more fruitful than Circles in the Water, or than Virgil's white Sow. But to answer your Quotation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon perusing the place where this was taken out, I found Origen to speak not Dogmatically but Allegorically, as the sequel of his Discourse evidences, he calling Haereses Daemons, & regna Caelorum virtutes: And again, Enitere ut tu sis Petra non extra te, sed intra te Petram require: Petra tua mens super hanc Petram aedificatur domus tua: These are Mystical Glosses, and fanciful Allegories, Which whosoever indulges, may make quidlibet ex quolibet. As for your Quotation out of him, it would certainly be the most absurd thing imaginable to take it in a literal Sense; for if every Christian were a Foundation, where would be the Superstructure, how could this Spiritual Building ever be completed? this therefore could not be origen's genuine meaning to equalise every Disciple of Christ to Peter, whom by way of transcendency he calls, The great Foundation of the Church, Exod. 5. And on Rom. 6. Cum super Petrum velut super terram fundaretur Ecclesia: And again, Petrus, super quem Christus fundavit Ecclesia, duas tantummodo Epistolas scripsit, In Matt. de Can. Novi. Testam. And his Comments on St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter on whom the Church of Christ is built, against whom the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, etc.  
I shall now with as much brevity as may be, dispatch the rest of your Objections on this Text to my affirming that Christ spoke Syriack, and used no other word but Kiphas both for Person and thing. You reply, that it is an uncertain conjecture, and that he might use different words, for all we know, without bringing any Authority for what you say, but your own fancy, which I am so far from giving credit to, that now I mistrust your Judgement: Pray hear what Beza says on this place, Dominus Syriacè loquens nullâ usus est agnominatione, sed utrobique dixit, Cepha, quemadmodum & vernaculum nomen Pierre, tam de proprio quam de appellativo dicitur. And herein the Original and Oriental Languages agree, as I find it in Cornelius a Lapide on this place. Thou art Alsachra, and on this Alsachra says the Arabian. Thou art Bim, and on this Bim says the Armenian. Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha says the Hebrew. Thou art Kipha, and on this Kipha says the Syriack.  
In the next place you would fain make some distinction betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but herein you run counter to the Sentiments of your own Writers. Dr. Hammond in his Notes on this place says, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine is exactly all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Feminine, it being in the Syriack, thou art Kipha, and on this Kiphas, etc. Likewise Beza in his Notes on St Matthew, In Graeco Sermone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non re sed terminatione tantum differunt. Now that Cephas and Petrus signify Petra take St. Hierom's Authority for it in his Notes on the Epistle to the Galatians, In Evangelio, & in aliis Pauli Epistolis, & in hac quoque ipsâ, modo Cephas, modo Petrus scribitur, non quod aliud significat Petrus aliud Cephas, sed quam nos Latinè & Graecè Petram vocamus, hanc Hebraei & Sylli propter linguae inter se viciniam Cephan nuncupant. Now as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it does not at all differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but being applied to a Man, it had a Masculine termination, that it might gratify the Ear with a more pleasing Euphony. Hence by the Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are promiscuously applied to Peter. Chrysost. in his 9th. Hom. de Paenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Nazianz. Orat. 26. speaking of Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphanius in Ancorate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus St. Ambrose in his Hymn speaking of him, Hoc ipsâ Petrâ Ecclesiae canente, etc. And Tertullian, Latuit aliquid Petrum Ecclesiae aedificandae Petram dictam.  
As for the demonstrative Pronoun hanc, I affirmed, that it must be referred to the next Antecedent, which was Peter; this will appear undeniably true, if you consult the Original, either as our Saviour spoke those words in the Syriack, or as St. Matthew wrote them in the Hebrew, in both which Languages the same word serves for Person and Thing: So the word hanc cannot with any colour of reason be referred either to Christ, or to Peter's Confession, because Christ had not spoke of either of them before, but only of him as he was the Son of Jona.  
Next you desire to know, what inconvenience would arise from expounding this Rock to be Christ. To this I answer, that tho' I grant Christ to be called a Rock, yet it is very irrational to Interpret the word Rock of Christ, wheresoever you find it expressed in Scripture, our Saviour being not really a Rock, but only called so by a Metaphorical Locution. This is observed by St. Austin, Per similitudines Christus multa est, quae per proprietatem non est: per similitudinem & Petra est Christus, & Ostium, & Lapis Angularis, & Pastor, & Agnus, & Leo. And in the same place, Non est Petra, quia durus & sine sensu non est: Nec Ostium quia faber eum non fecit; nec Lapis Angularis, quia non est a structore compositus; Nec Pastor, quia custos non est ovium quadrupedum; nec Leo est, quia fera non est; nec Agnus, quia pecus non est, etc. 47th. Tract. Johan. Here you see that Christ has many other Names besides Petra, but I shall here apply myself only to that, Bibebant de spirituali Petra, Petra autem erat Christus; that is, as Hugo Grotius observes, Christum praefigurabat, as in Genes. 41. Septem boves, septem spicae, sunt septem anni. Here Christ is called a Rock, not as if the word Rock were in all Respects and Considerations applicable to him, for than he would be barren, unfruitful, deaf, cruel, without bowels of compassion, etc. but in consideration of those Crystal Pellucid Streams of Water that issued out of the Womb of the Rock, that being a Typical Adumbration of him. Hence he invites those that thirst to come to him and drink, in John 7. And in Apocal. 22. He that thirsteth, let him come and take of the Waters of Life freely: In this Sense our Saviour is here by the Apostle styled a Rock. Now in Isaias 51. I find Abraham likewise to be called a Rock, but in a different acceptation, for as Hugo Grotius observes, Voces per translationem usurpatae, aliis aliter aptantur. The Jews being there said to be hewn out of his Entrails, as Stones are cut out of a Lapidicina, or Quarry: But in this place Peter is called a Rock, in reflection on the Relation which a Rock has with the Foundation of a Building: So he here is the only Rock our Saviour speaks of, on whom he designed to rear his Church, Christ being in this place not so properly called its Rock as its Architect, not its Foundation as Founder; as the word Aedificabo intimates. This was excellently well observed by Hugo Grotius, Paulus se Architectum vocat, quod officium Christus hic sibi vendicat. Besides, 'tis most apparent by the foregoing and following words, which are directed only to him, that Christ is he, who here promises to build; and Peter is the Person on whom he engaged himself by Promise to build on; and this you must assent to, unless you will assign the words such an understanding as contradict the words immediately precedent, and subsequent, from which only the true genuine Sense is to be extracted. The precedent words are, Tu es Petrus, and the subsequent are, tibi dabo, etc. both which imply Peter's Person, as the Pronouns tu and tibi evidently evince the intermedial words; super hanc Petram must likewise relate to Peter. And you may observe, that Christ did not say, that he would build his Church on a Rock, but determinately, on this Rock, deictically designing Peter, vel digito, vel notâ; thus hanc cannot be referred to Christum Petram, but to Petrum Petram there being no other Rock mentioned here, but he; Christ being described here, not by the name of Petra, but as Filius Dei vivi; he then in relation to the Rock, is the Builder; in reference to the Keys, is the Donor: This appears more evident by the Conjunction Copulative (et) Et ego dico tibi, etc. which connects and knits together the foregoing Speech of our Saviour to him, otherwise it should have been (sed) not et. Besides, pray tell me, how were these words (Et ego dico tibi) spoken to him, but by way of explaining the meaning of his new Name; for he had a promise of this Name before, as appears by the First of St. John, Tu vocaberis Cephas; and to what purpose was the exact description of his Person (which Salmeron says, was so precise,  nec pluribus, nec evidentioribus circumstantiis haeredes a Tabellionibus publicis denominantur, describuntur quam Petrus hîc) whose Son he was, and what his Name was, if nothing designed his Person? And where is the reward of his Confession, which the Fathers unanimously acknowledge he deserved, and obtained, if the Church were not built on him? Having thus at large discoursed about this Text, I shall here subjoin the true Native meaning of our Saviour, which in short, is this, Tu es Petrus, & super te quasi rupem firmam me confitentem aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: The words are really plain, the Sense of them seems obvious, but to see how by Interessed, and Heretical Pens they be contorted, is portentous.  
Your last Argument is, That if the Church were built on Peter 's Person, it must have expired when he gave up the Ghost. To this I answer, That by my saying the Church is built on him, and on his Successors, I mean, him and them to be Supreme Heads of the Church. So I shall answer this Objection by way of Question. Pray did the Jewish Church expire upon the Death of Aron? Did not he survive in the succeeding High-Priests? even just thus Peter dies not: But lives in his Successors; as you may find it in Epist. Praeamb. Conc. Calch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Considering the B. Peter who lives and presides in his own See. And accordingly Conc. Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Peter, who lives, judges and defines in his Succescessors: Thus 'tis likewise good in Law, Rex non moritur.   
The End of the Second Part.   

THE THIRD PART.  

CHAP. I. Of the Keys. That they denote Supreme Power. Whether Sobna were Highpriest? Of the High-Priests and Kings of the Jews. Whether the Jewish Kings were Supreme in Church Affairs? The difference betwixt the Jewish and Christian Priesthood.  
MY ensuing Task will be to treat of the Keys, which I design here to do with as much brevity as the avoidance of obscurity will permit. I proved in my Papers to you, that they, by a general acceptation, were Symbols and Ensigns of Dominion: And moreover, that by a Scriptural Metaphor in Isaias 22. they denoted Supreme, Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction. To my first Proof you are as silent as a Turkish Mute: My second you oppugn. But before I writ any thing in its defence, I must tell you, That whether or no our Saviour did allude to those words in Isaias, 'tis easy enough to make out, that he, by promising them to Peter did destiny him to the Supreme Spiritual Power without the assistance of an allusion to this Passage: Yet 'tis highly probable, Christ did allude to them, and whosoever doth sedately poise these words Dabo Clavem domûs David, & dabo tibi Claves; will find such a strict adjacency and alliance betwixt them, as with good reason he may imagine our Saviour did allude to them. But to choke up the very Springs of this Cavil, I shall now prove the Keys even in the Sense of the New Testament to decipher absolute Dominion: and accordingly you will find St. Chrysostom in his 55th Homil. on St. Matthew, to affirm, that our Saviour, by virtue of his Promise of the donation of the Keys, did not only give St. Peter Power over the whole World, but to rise a Key higher, even over things in Heaven. The Keys likewise in Apocalips 1. vers. 10. signify Supreme Power, where our Saviour says of himself, Habeo Claves mortis & inferni; By which Phrase absolute dominion over Death and Hell is indigitated; and St. Chrysost. affirms as much, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the Key of Hell is signified, that Christ has power over Life and Death: In his Comments on Apoc. Cap. 8. and in the same place he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Keys are ensigns of Power: And thus Oecomenius in his Comment on these words, Qui habet Clavem David, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He calls Power by the name of a Key, for he that has Power of shutting and opening, is entrusted with the House; and this you may more clearly learn in the Gospel, by those words which Christ spoke to Peter, Et dabo tibi Claves, etc. And a little after he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Keys import Power; and in this Sense 'tis twice more used in that Book, as in Cap. 9 v. 1. Data est ei Clavis Putei & Abyssi; and Cap. 20. v. 1. Videt Johannes Angelum habentem Clavem Abyssi: And accordingly it was anciently used in Orphicis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thus you may see I need not be beholden to that Passage in Isaias to prove Peter's Power granted him by the gift of the Keys; but because I mentioned it as an Argument, I shall say a little in its defence, and make some Reply to your Objections. First, you say, That it cannot be proved, that Sobna or Eliakim were of the Priest's Order: To this I answer, that you cannot disprove but that they were. This I am sure of, that I have better Authority which avouches they were, than you have, that they were not. As for your Pretensions to the Hebrew Tongue, should I grant them just, and permit you to pass Muster for a Rabbi; yet it does not at all follow, that I should be so conceited of you as to equalise you to St. Hierom, whose knowledge in that Language was so great, as all aught to veil to him. So I judge it my safest way not to exorbitate from his Translation impressed by the stamp of the Catholic Church. But to keep to the Point, the Hebrew word Sochen (which is no novelty in that Language) is liable to different meanings. But I find St. Hierom to translate Ingredere ad Sochen thus, Ingredere ad eum, qui habitat in Tabernaculo ad Sobnam Praepositum Templi, The Septuag. says thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which was a place in which the Priests did abide whilst they served in the Temple: thence they were called Pastophori. Pastus signifying either the Sacerdotal Pall or Lodging. And thus St. Cyril. on Book 2. Comments on Isaias, upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This place is in the Temple. Hence this Sobna is called Praepositus Templi,; and the Prophet deters him from the excision of his Sepulchre, because God would transplant the Priesthood. Thus v. 18. 'tis said, Coronans te coronabit, etc. which Corn. a Lapide observes, is rendered in the Chaldee, Auferet a te Tiaram. The Septuag. says, Auferet stolam & coronam tuam gloriosam, by which is meant, Corona & Tiara Pontificalis: And accordingly I find St. Cyril. to call the Stola 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Holy, Sacred: And in his Second Book of his Comments on Isaias, speaking of Eliakim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Sacerdotal Honour was conferred on him, is manifest, by his promising to Crown him, and saying, I will give you the Stola, Oeconomy, and Power, to be able to rule the People subject to you. Now, as for Sobna, his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I find St. Cyril to solve that Objection in his Second Book of Comments on Isaias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He inveights against Sobna the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who had got the High-Priesthood, but abused it. Your other Argument to cut him off from being Highpriest, is, because he is called Praefectus Domûs, scilicet Regiae, as you add, by which you would have him to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Steward of the King's House; but you must understand, that the Temple was called Antonomasticè Domus; and accordingly, our Saviour, when he drove the Buyers and Sellers our of the Temple, told them, that his House was called Domus precationis, etc. Now if Josephus makes no mention of them, as you affirm, that at best is but a Negative, and so inconcludent: I find he is silent of several things which the Scripture makes mention of; he takes no notice of Gods punishing the Israelites for their murmuring whilst the Flesh of the Quails stuck betwixt their Teeth. I hope I may have the liberty to believe it, tho' he be found mute herein; but if his Authority be so swaying with you, I shall hope you will not disbelieve Absoloms' Hair to have weighed two hundred Sicles, and that it could scarcely be pulled in Eight days time. Then you say, that the High-Priests of the Jews were Types of Christ, not of Peter. That they were Types of Christ in some Sense cannot be denied; so was Solomon for his peaceable Reign, Christ being styled Princeps pacis; so was Isaac, carrying the Wood to burn the Sacrifice, as Christ did the Wood of the Cross; and Ionas for abiding Three Days and Nights in the Whale's Belly, as Christ was in the Sepulchre; and Joseph sold by his Brothers, as he was by Judas. And many more Types might be mentioned, but this is not worth the insisting on, and it may easily be proved, that the Jewish High-Priests were Typical of the Christian, if the Point were material; I am sure St. Cyprian in his Epistles Expounds those things which are said concerning the one, of the other.  
The next thing you affirm is, That by the Keys in that place, is not meant any Supreme Authority, either in Church or State, such as the Romanist's claim for Peter and his Successors, for Sobna and Eliakim, if Priests were subject to King Hezechias, and the Kings in those Days, and many Ages after, were Supreme in all Causes, both Ecclesiastical and Civil.  
To this I answer, that 'tis not necessary to my purpose, to go about to prove what is meant by the Keys mentioned by Isaias, St. Peter's Authority being not grounded upon that, but on the words in St. Matthew, Et dabo tibi Claves.  
As for the other part of your Assertion, That the Jewish High-Priests were subject to the Jewish Kings, (whom you affirm to be Supreme in all Causes, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, and to have governed Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure) I find myself obliged to make some Reply to it, as likewise, of Christian Princes (to whom from the Jewish you descend): But I would more willingly have declined treating of this Point, knowing how nice and dangerous it is to handle it; and that now I walk per ignes suppositos cineri doloso: But because you have so fairly thrown it in my way, and being treating of the Keys, it will seem fit to clear their Authority, I cannot well avoid taking some notice of it, which I shall here do, making a short halt in taking up this Atalanta's Apple, which you seem to have dropped to impede my course. It may appear strange that I, who am of the Laity, should write in favour of the Clergy; and that you, who are a Divine should endeavour to establish Laicocephalism, and depress the Clergy, robbing it of its just Rights, and thereby becoming false to your own Coat: But if this be well inspected, there is much to be said in your Vindication; for you (knowing that your New Religion was begun, and hitherto maintained by the Secular Power) cannot but in gratitude and policy give it the preference; however, you may perhaps in this present conjuncture, be willing to recall part of what you have so prodigally granted.  
The first you mention to have governed Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure, is Moses; and it is granted you, that he did so; but than you are to look on him as a mixed Person, in whom both the Sacerdotal and Regal Power were combined: So what he did herein, was not purely by virtue of his Kingly, but Priestly Power. This is clear out of St. Austin's Testimony, in his Questions on Leviticus, Lib. 3. Quest. 23. Si Moses Sacerdos non fuit, quomodo per illum omnia gerebantur? si fuit, quomodo summum Sacerdotium ab ejus fratre incipit? which he thus solves. Ambo erant summi Sacerdotes, Aaron propter vestem Pontificalem, Moses propter excellentius ministerium. Thus likewise Philo in his Life of Moses gives this account of him in his Third Book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Such was the Life and Death of Moses, who was both King, Legislator, Highpriest, and Prophet. And accordingly Greg. Nazianzen in his Sixth Oration calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prince of Princes, and Priest of Priests. Now the Secular and Ecclesiastic Power which was united in the Person of Moses, was afterwards parted betwixt Eleazar and Joshua, the one succeeding him in the Priestly, and the other in the Princely Power; as you may see in the 27th of Numbers, where God commands Moses to give Joshua part of his Glory; but in the same Chapt. you may see that he subjected Joshua to Eleazar, at whose word, both he and all the Children of Israel were to go in and out.  
Your next Example is of Solomon, whom I grant to have removed Abiathar from the Pontificate, and to have subrogated Sadock in his place. But first you are to understand, that he was not deposed for any matter of Faith, or concerning Religion; but for Treason and Rebellion: For conspiring with Adonia (whom he had Anointed King) against Solomon. Next you are to observe, that Solomon exauctorated him not as King, but as Prophet, to whom God had committed some things after an extraordinary manner. So what he acted herein, was not by his own Royal Power, but by Authority and Commission from God, by Divine Inspiration, as the Text evidences,  impleretur Sermo Dei quem locutus est super domo Eli in Silo. This Action therefore of his, does not at all prove him to be superior to the Highpriest: But only that God was pleased to make use of him as an Executer for the performance of a Sentence which he had formerly denounced: And this will be easily understood if recourse be made to History. Aaron had two Sons, Eleazar and Ithamar: Eleazar as eldest succeeded him in the Priesthood, his Son Phinees succeeded him, and his Posterity down to Heli continued in that Holy Function. At which time the Posterity of Phinees incuriously administering the Priesthood, God was pleased to punish their neglect, by translating it from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, to wit, to Heli; in which Family it continued about 120 Years, to salomon's days, who deposed Abiathar the — Abnepos of Heli, for conspiring with his Corrival Adonias, substituting Sadock in his place. Now as the Pontificate was removed by God's order from the Family of the eldest Brother to that of the younger House, so was it likewise transplanted from thence into the right Line, by the Authority of the same God, who was pleased in several things to order and direct those Kings of Israel, governing as it were by them. This made Josephus to affirm in his Second Book against Appio, That God did not so much institute in Israel a Monarchy as a Theocracy or Deiarchy: But now if this Action of Salomon's deposing Adonias, be construed in favour of the Prince, as if he thereby were Superior to the Highpriest, The Clergy has as strong an Argument for their Superiority, in Samuel's declaring King Saul dethroned; but I look on both these Examples as extraordinary, and consequently not Presidential.  
The next Example is David, but he being likewise King and Prophet, what can be alleged concerning him, is answered in what is said of Solomon; it is moreover mentioned of him, that what he did in Church Matters was, Juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege Domini.  
As for the Example of Ezechias, tho' it be granted he constituted Levites in the House of God; yet in the Second Book Paralip. Cap. 29. you may perceive, that what he did herein was, Secundum dispositionem David & Gad videntis, & Nathan Prophetae. Siquidem Domini praeceptum fuit per manum Prophetarum ejus. And herein you will likewise find, that he was much ruled by Isaias, as in Eccles. 48. 25. Fecit Ezechias quod placuit Deo, & fortiter ivit in via David Patris sui, quam mandavit illi Isaias. Thus you may perceive, that the Examples of these Kings are not at all apposite to your Point, they not proving, that Princes by their sole Royal Power may intermeddle in Church Affairs, or reform Religion in its Substance; enacting things by their own Authority, contrary to the Assent of God's Highpriest and Prophets. Some Kings by extraordinary Command, as Kings and Prophets did concern themselves in Church Affairs; Others not without consent and assistance of the Priests, did very laudably use their utmost power to destroy Idolatry, and restore Discipline; but which of them disowned the Authority of the Highpriest? abrogated his-Power, and invested himself with it? Now that the Kings of Israel were not Supreme in Church Matters, seems evident by the word of God spoken to the Highpriest Eliakim in Isaias 22. where after he had promised to give him the Key of David, he explains to him the Power of it; Et aperiet & non erit qui claudat, & claudet, & non erit qui aperiat; by which he plainly makes him Supreme in Church Affairs, no Person whatsoever being able to exclude whom he opened to; Or to introduce whom he shut out. And to Sinew this Argument with a stronger Nerve, you will find that Jehosophat, who was a Religious Prince, would not handle Church Affairs, knowing that they belonged to the Highpriest, as in Paralip. 2. 19 Ananias autem Sacerdos & Pontifex vester in his quae ad Deum pertinent praesidebit. And on the contrary, Osias, who presumed to usurp the Sacerdotal Function, and offer Incense to God, was by the incensed Deity struck with Leprosy. By what I have mentioned it will clearly appear, how irrational it is for you to produce the Jewish Kings as Examples to justify your former Kings exorbitant tampering in Church Affairs, there being no Parallel at all betwixt them; They acting therein as Kings and Prophets Authorised by God's extraordinary Commission, and in their Reformations joining with the Highpriest; whereas yours was in opposition to him, and warranted by nothing but Secular Might. But now after all this, if you could clearly prove, that the Jewish Kings were superior to the Highpriest, and Supreme (Quatenùs Kings) in Church Affairs; it would not follow, that that similitude should hold good amongst Christians; The Priesthood in the Old Testament being Imperfect, Carnal, Umbratick, and Prefigurative, of one that was Complete, Sublime and Spiritual. Hence St. Chrysost. Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New, ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosy of the Body; but to these, the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul, they bring Fire; but these the Holy Ghost. And in his Orat. 5. adver. Judaeos', speaking of the Pontificate of Melchisedeck, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish, how much more glorious is the true one?  
Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs, is, Because by Divine appointment they were, Custodes utriusque Tabulae. This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof: For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King, it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversy; but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it: That by the frequent reading of it, he might learn to fear God, and keep his Statutes; and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword, he should defend the true Religion therein concontained: As for the Interpretation of the Law that belonged to the Highpriest, according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam, & Legem requirent ex ore ejus: They were as Josephus affirms in his Second Book against Appio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judges of Controversies: And in Deut. 17. Princes were by God's institution to take the Copy of it from the Highpriest: And in the same Chapter, in doubtful Cases the Jews were obliged to recur to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations. Now whether the Jewish Highpriest were liable to Error as you assert, is not worth my present Discussion (no Catholic being bound to believe the Pope's Infallibility, but in Conjunction with a Council;) But this is clear, the Jews were absolutely obliged to submit to his determinations under penalty of Death, he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS. By this you may imagine how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirmed him Fallible, and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions. You see our Saviour put no such fancies into their Heads, but paid much respect to Moses' Chair; and tho' he knew that those who sat in it, were bad Men, yet he says, Quaecunque vobis dixerint, facite: And St. Paul styles the Highpriest (tho' a Persecutor of the Christians) Princeps Populi.   

CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head. Of Christian Emperors intermeddling with Church Matters. The Father's Opinion of it. Particular Emperors, who are falsely affirmed by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church. Of our English Kings. Of Henry VIII. Of this our present King James II.  
YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes, these you assert to be Heads of the Church; and your Reason for this Assertion is this, That if a King be Head of his Kingdom, he is Head of the Church, because that is in his Kingdom. This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument, to prove a Nero Head of the Church, because in its Infancy it was in his Dominions. But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein, and acquaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom, and how they may be Supreme, Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus, non ut Christiani, sed ut homines sunt: Reges non ut Christiani praesunt, sed ut homines politici, etc. And again, Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos, ut Christiani sunt homines; id est, Cives terrenae Civitatis: Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum, Domestici Dei, Ecclesiae membra. Hence you may see, that a King may be absolute in his Kingdom, and yet not be Head of the Church; those two Estates residing in two several Persons, as being of distinct and different Natures. The one's Dominion extending to Mundan, Temporal, Corruptible things; the Body and Goods of Fortune; the other reaching to things Spiritual, Eternal, Celestial, to things appertaining to another World, and Salvation of the Soul. And 'tis necessary to have two such distinct Governors: The Civil Power to maintain Peace, to protect and secure us in our Temporals: The Ecclesiastic to teach us the true Worship of God, to feed us with Food that perisheth not, to direct us in Spirituals, to the attainment of Eternal Bliss. These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other, cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another (or any way interfere but by way of abuse) but rather assistant to one another, being in themselves Friendly and Amicable. Hence Samuel having anointed David King, kissed him, the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity: This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement, and Accord betwixt these two Governments; they are both Independent, so as one might not usurp on the other, or hinder the other in the due Execution of their Charge. The Prince is absolute in Administration of all Civil Matters, in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject; and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus, & solo Deo minor, as Tertull. has it, ad Scapul; or as Chrysost. says in Hom. 2. Antioch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth.  
The Priest on the other side presides in Church Government, in Spiritual Affairs, in Resolutions of Controversies in Faith, in Explications of Articles of Belief, in Interpretation of Scripture, etc. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale, and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale. They are both of Divine Institution: The Kingly Power communicated to Princes from Heaven, their Charter being derived from God, by whom King's Reign. The Priestly Jurisdiction originated from Christ, subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power. Now to admit and submit to the Sacerdotal Power, as Supreme in things merely and purely Spiritual, does not at all dislustre the Regal Sway, nor defringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction, the former properly insinuating itself to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses, where the Sceptre of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion.  
Having premised thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power, I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes, whom you affirm to have governed Church Affairs, both de facto & de jure. Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs, is not denied, several of them being Arians; but that they did it de jure, will not be yielded you, neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right; for 'tis evident, that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles. Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their Successors into the Hands of Secular Princes, I shall herein be satisfied. This I am sure of, that it continued in their Hands above 300 Years, Constantine being the first Christian King; and 'tis evident enough, that he never attempted to rob them of it, and assume it to himself; and the other good Emperors would not intermeddle with Church-Affairs, but by assent of the Church, and to assist it: Some other Emperors that were busy herein, ruin'd themselves thereby, and some repent of it, as Constantius by name, who upon his Deathbed declared this to be one of the three things that most disquieted him, which Nazianz. mentions to be these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The murder of his Relations; his proclaiming the Apostate Julian Emperor, his Innovation in matters of Faith. But that which gives me greatest satisfaction herein, is, because I find the Fathers to check the Emperors when they put their Fingers into Church Matters, which had been very unproper, had they looked on them as Heads of the Church. Thus Athanasius, Ad solit. vit. agentes, speaking of Constantius the Emperor's usurping Power in the Church, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For who is he that seeing him ruling over the lawful Bishops, and presiding in Ecclesiastic Judgements will not consequently say, this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel. And in the same Epistle he tells the Emperor wherein his Power properly consists, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; God has committed the Kingdom to you; but he has entrusted the Affairs of the Church with us. And accordingly St. Ambrose tells the Emperor upon the like occasion, Publicorum tibi moenium jus commissum, non sacrorum; ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent, ad Sacerdotem Ecclesia: In his Epist. 33. ad Imperat. and in his Epist. 32. he tells him, In causâ fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare. This Power of the Clergy in ecclesiastics is acknowledged by Ignatius ad Smyrn. where he expressly says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Bishop Usher thus translates, Nemo praeter Episcopum aliquid agat eorum, quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent; the words may be translated either praeter Episcopum, or sine Episcopo. This Priestly Power is acknowledged by the Fathers: Hence 'tis that Nazianz. in his Orat. 17. ascribes to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Dominion, Tribunal and Principacy: And in the same Orat. he affirms their Power nobler than the Secular, where speaking of the Governor, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For we ourselves rule, I will add, that our Principacy is greater and more perfect: And accordingly he tells the Governor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That the Law of Christ had subjected him to his Dominion and Tribunal. St. Chrysoft. seems to be of the same Opinion, Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae, Vidi Dominum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Priesthood is a more venerable and greater Principacy than a Temporal Kingdom; affirming, that God subjected the King's Head to the High-Priests Hands, instructing us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he was the greatest Prince of the two. And accordingly Cyril in his 17th Catech. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; To this very day we see Earthly Princes governed by ecclesiastics. I have not quoted any of these Authorities with an intent to decide which of these two Powers be the greatest, but to prove, that the Fathers did acknowledge them both as distinct, and as I have declared both of them Absolute and Independent in their kind; so I shall conclude this Point with the saying of Ignatius to that purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You are now pleased to descend to particulars, mentioning the Christian Emperors by name, who de facto & jure governed the Church. The first you pick out is Constantine, whom you have most falsely traduced, by making him a Head or Governor of the Church, as assuming to himself Ecclesiastic Supremacy: A Crime he both abhorred, and was wholly untainted with. 'Tis well known, he was a great Honourer of Sylvester Pope in his days, looking on him as Peter's Successor, Supreme Head of the Church, and he was besides a great enricher, no Sacrilegious Robber of it. He attempted not to alter any of its Articles, but embraced its Doctrine, and ratified its Conciliary Definitions, as Athanasius affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strengthening them by his Imperial Law. And he was so far from acting as Head of the Church, as he dared not to judge a Bishop, as Augustin affirms in his 166 Epist. Sed quia Constantinus non est ausus de causâ Episcopi judicare, eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit: And Ruffin. likewise, Lib. 10. Hist. Cap. 2. mentions this Answer of his to the Bishops, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos a vobis recte judicamus. As for the Objection of Caecilianus, I find it fully solved by Card. Perròn in his Third Book to King James Cap. 4. Besides, whoever considers his behaviour in the Council will not think he acted as Head of the Church. For, first, he would not sit down till he had desired permission of the Bishops, which Theodoret expresses thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having asked leave of the Bishops to grant it: Eusebius thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Valesius thus translates, Nec prius sedere sustinuit quam Episcopi id nutu significâssent. Theodoret after he had mentioned the Speech he made, adds this, Haec & similia tanquam filius, & amator pacis Sacerdotibus veluti Patribus offerebat. Here he acted as a Son of the Church, not as a Head, neither did he any thing in the Council by way of defining, but by assenting to its Dicisions, being present there, rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Decency and Order than for any thing else.  
As for the Emperors Justinian, Theodosius and Charlemagne, whom you likewise particularise upon the same account as you did Constantine, I must acknowledge, that they did make Laws concerning the Affairs of the Church, but none of them made any in opposition to it, or the Definitions thereof, but rather agreeable to them, reducing the Church's Faith and Canons for Discipline into Imperial Laws, to the intent they might be more obeyed by their Subjects. This is no more than what was practised by Jovinian, who in those great differences of Opinions which were in his days, desired of the Orthodox Bishops a Platform of the True Faith, which Athanasius gave him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Nazianz. calls it, A Royal Gift indeed, which he confirmed by his Imperial Power. But to return to the above mentioned Emperors, and to see how their Examples will jump with your Case. First, They made Laws, that the Catholic Religion should be observed in all their Dominions: You make Laws for its subversion, altering its Articles, and foisting in their room new Negatives in opposition to them. They made Laws in defence of the Pope, acknowledging him the Prince and Head of God's Holy Priests: You make Laws in defiance of him, pulling of him down as a Spiritual Usurper. They made Laws which were according to his Approbation, the Rules and Definitions of the Church, backing the Spiritual with the Temporal Sword: You make Laws in affront to him, and against the Decrees of the Church. Thus you see their proceed herein have no affinity with Henry the Eighth's Headship, nor with Edward the Sixth's Reformation of the Ecclesiastic Laws, nor with Queen Eliz. New Articles and Canons. But that you may more be convinced herein, I shall give you a few Patterns of these Emperor's Decrees, which at your leisure you may confront with those of your party, and see how they quadrate; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justinian, Novel. 131. We enact, that according to their own Sanctions, the most Holy Pope of Old Rome, be the Prince of High-Priests: And in his Decrees about Justiniana, he acknowledges therein to have followed the Definitions of Pope Vigilius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and in Justin. eod. Lib. 7. he says thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Neither will we suffer any thing which belongs to to the State of the Church, not to be referred to your Holiness, as being the Head of all the Holy Priests of God.  
As for Theodosius, I find in Sozom. L. 7. C. 4. that he put out an Edict, Commanding that Religion which Pope Damasus had preserved, as delivered to him by St. Peter, should be observed, enjoining all his Subjects to embrace it. I can find no Edict of his for reforming and altering it: This he enjoined those under him to be of, under penalty of being reputed Heretics, and Infamous, and deservers of Punishment. Thus much Power in Church-Affairs is still granted every King; and to speak the Truth, 'tis their Duty to defend the Church by their Temporal Power against Heresy and Schism: By such Actions as these they purchase to themselves the glorious Title of Nursing Fathers and Propugnators, not by usurping Authority over the Church, depluming its Head of that Power which Christ invested him with, and appropriating it to themselves, changing Articles of Belief established by General Councils, and Ancient Traditionary Truths, handed down from Father to Son; these are Actions unpresidented by any well instructed Christian Emperor, who I find to be very cautious touching Church-Affairs, as you may perceive by the Answer of the Emperor Valentinian to the Bishop of Heraclea, Sozom. Lib. 6. C. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; It is not lawful for me, who am one of the Laity to concern myself about such things.  
After this vagrancy of your Roving Fancy you begin to think of home, and being returned into your own Country, you affirm of our English Kings, that Church-Affairs were both de facto & jure, governed by them. This if you shall ever be able to prove out of good Authors, you will certainly deserve the Palm for an admirable Historian.  
I have already proved, that Church-Matters do belong to the Spiritual not to the Temporal Power; and that these two Governments are distinct; and for this I have the Authority of St. Chrysost. who in his Hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae in Vidi Dominum, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; There be other limits of a Kingdom, and other limits of the Priesthood, but this is greater than that. As for Matter of Fact, I will not deny but that some Princes before Henry the Eighth irritated, either by their Passion, or allured by a curiosity of intermeddling with what did not appertain to them, have entrenched upon the Immunities of the Church, and asserting a pretended Right, have clashed with the Roman Bishop, and meddled de facto with Church-Matters, but quo jure is the Question. You cannot prove a right of Power by proving an exercise of Power, unless it be allowed of for granted, That whatever a King does is lawful. Their Quarrels with the Pope were chief about Investitures, and disposal of Bishoprics: They did not deny his Supremacy in Spirituals; or if they quarrelled with any particular Pope, they did not attempt the abolishing of Papacy. A Pope may be to blame, and so may a King; but neither of these Institutions (as Sacred) ought to be abrogated for the faults of Men. But to bring the parallel home to your Case: Did our Kings before Henry the Eighth make themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ? Did they challenge as innate to their Crowns, Supreme Power in all Cases both Spiritual and Civil? Did they rob the Pope of his Power, and assume Papal Jurisdiction? Did they vindicate to themselves Authority in Church Affairs, ordering Laymen, Vicar Generals in Spiritualities, as Cromwell was, who sat in the Convocation-House amongst the Bishops, as Head over them? This would to them have appeared as new and monstrous a sight as ever was brought out of Africa. Suppose they clashed with the Church of Rome, did they ever part from her, and all other Christian Churches besides, as you did in your Reformation? making Laws to reverse Decrees of General Councils, changing Religion, and altering Articles of Belief? Did they pick Quarrels with the Church, and then Sacrilegiously seize on her Lands and Goods, Sacrificing to their fury as many Churchmen as would not comply with their Nefarious Oaths; Demolishing Religious Houses, violating Sacred Orders? Was any thing of this nature acted in the days of Henry the Seventh, or of those brave Princes before him? But I shall not proceed further on this Point, we having at present a King granted us by the indulgent benignity of Heaven, who well knows, how to distinguish betwixt the Rights of the Church, and his own Royal Right; betwixt what belongs to, God and what to Caesar; what to the Mitre and what to the Crown. A most Religious Prince tracing the sure Footsteps of his Great Ancestors; owning the Religion which his vast Kingdoms received at their forsaking Heathenism, and Conversion to Christianity. In a Right and proper Sense Defender of the true Catholic Apostolic Faith, for defending whereof, this Crown obtained that illustrious Title. For this Prince, Pietate insignis & Armis, no less Pious than Valiant, no less Just than Good; endued with all those Adorable Qualities, which render him amongst Kings, the most Conspicuous, amongst Monarches the most Renowned; we ought to be highly grateful to the Supreme God, whose Lieutenant he is; hoping that under so Gracious and Merciful a Prince we may be protected from our cruel inveterate Enemies, and that now at length our Innocency may be a sufficient Shield to defend us from the false Oaths of Profligate, Perjured Villains, who have so long triumphed over us, bathing their wicked Hands in guiltless Blood. And now having made mention of our Natural Liege Sovereign, I shall conclude this Point with a Prayer for him, according to the Platform of Tertullian, wishing his Majesty Vitam prolixam: Imperium securum: Domum tutam: Exercitus fortes: Senatum fidelem: Populum probum: Orbem quietum: And I hope you will join with me herein, not formally, as when you pray for him in your Church, marring your Prayer with some obliqne Reflection; but ex Pectore, Hearty wishing him all those Benedictions which he may desire as Homo, and as Caesar; Which God grant him. Morever, I would desire you to leave off injuring your Prince, in railing against his Religion in your Sermons, falsely representing it to your cheated Auditory, impressing them with wrong Ideas of it, and thereby alienating the Affections of his Majesty's Liege Subjects, which is a Crime of the greatest magnitude, and of most dangerous Consequences; yet this freedom is taken by several, who fancy they may wreak and evaporate that Passion (which they dare not on his Sacred Person) safely against his Religion; thus slily discharging their rancour against a most incomparable Prince, to whom they can ascribe no other fault, but what really in itself is Glorious and deserving Acclamations, namely, His returning to the bosom of the Catholic Church; which Action of his being rendered more noble by the violent Oppositions and Contrasts of his Enemies (will maugre their spite) purchase to him surpassing Glory in this World, and Immortal Beatitude in that to come. He, who (like a Generous Eagle, slighting the Artillery of the Sky, darting through the midst of the storm, where the flashes are most astonishing, and the claps most loud) with an undaunted Spirit, triumphantly resisted and broke through the tumultuous Rage of popular fury, and stemmed the torrent of its impetuous stream, contemning those many Crowns that did attend him, for his Conscience sake. He has not only now his Victorious Temples adorned by the Justice of Heaven with a Diadem more bright than that of his Predecessors (being thereby made CONTEMPTAE DOMINVS SPLENDIDIOR REI:) But has an innumerable quantity of Celestial Crowns, beset with Stars reserved for him in the rich Treasury of Heaven, as a suitable reward for his hazarding his Temporal ones for the sake of his GOD AND RELIGION. For Thee, GREAT PRINCE, Praise has no proper Encomium, nor COMMENDATION a fit Panegyric, nor this World an adequate Recompense, nor thy Kingdoms a suitable Sacrifice; but that of the Hearts of thy Subjects. Too happy would this Nation be, had it understanding enough to apprehend its own Good, having a Prince, who would not only protect them here on Earth, but serve as a Pilot to conduct them to Heaven.   

CHAP. III. Of the Keys. In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest. That what Christ replied, was directed immediately to Peter only. In what Sense 'twas extendible to the Rest. How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys. An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys. The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church received the Keys in St. Austin 's Sense. Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys? With Advice to him.  
IT may now seem high time to finish my intermitted Discourse concerning the Keys, answering you likewise in that Point: But upon perusing your Papers, I find you writ but little on this Subject, but only offer me a rude indigested Lump of Quotations, without any Method, which in lieu of becoming a Clue to conduct me, were a Skein of snarled Thread to perplex and involve me; which made me more curious in prying into the intricacies of this matter and of acquiring satisfaction herein, which I thought could not be obtained without reducing your Quotations into some form, and then by solving them. Your chief drift in them was, I perceive, First to prove that Peter answered for the rest of the Apostles; and thence to infer, that what was said by our Saviour to him, was spoken to the Rest: By this Method you would evince the Rest to be equally concerned with him in the donation of the Keys: This, in short, is the Web of your Design, which I shall here endeavour to unravel. This kind of Argumenting I find Dr. Whitaker to make use of long before you, Petrus Discipulorum omnium nomine respondit, Tu es Christus, etc. Ergo omnium nomine audivit, Tibi dabo Claves; but the cunning of this reasoning will be easily detected, when it is examined upon what account he may be said to answer for the Rest. Dr. Whitaker says, it was because they had the same Faith, and he only spoke for them; his words are these, Non in suâ tantum personâ illam confessionem edidit Petrus; fuit enim communis illa fides atque confessio, Petri unius ore edita: But this his Opinion can never be proved, the Revelation of the true Faith being made to him only, as I have already manifested. As for the Fathers who affirm, that Peter answered for the Rest, Salmeron says of them thus, Recte intelligendi, Orthodoxè interpretandi: And this is good Advice; for they in saying so, take the Twelve as a Society, and Peter as their chief; and in this Sense he may be said to speak for them: But then he did not speak as their Praeco, but as their Princeps, he spoke not their Sense, but what God the Father had revealed and suggested to him; he answered what they could not answer; but they, by their silence approving his Confession upon his first promulging it, are said to answer by his Mouth; tho' properly speaking Petrus solus respondit, caeteri assentiuntur: Now they being Members of that Community of which he was Supreme, the words may be said in an inferior Sense, to be spoken to the Rest, which were originally spoken to him. But now if they had the same Faith as he had, our Saviors rejoinder had seemed more proper, thus, Beati estis, quia Pater meus revelavit vobis: vos estis Petrae, etc. But you see Christ addresses his Reply to Peter only, the words Tu and Tibi shutting out all partnership. And this is St. Austin's Opinion of it, Serm. 5. In Festo Petri & Pauli, where speaking of Peter, he says thus, Solus inter Apostolos meruit audire; Amen dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, etc. And herein Spalleto is very honest, Certè verba Christi adeo sunt arctata & voculis individuantibus ad unum Petrum directa, ut nefas sit ea a Petri personâ divellere & directè ad alios dirigere; certissimum est Christum cum Petro directè & proximè loqui. Now if Persons would be ingenuous, it is easily discerned when Christ grants a thing peculiar to Peter, and when he grants a thing in common to them all; what he designs the other Apostles should equally share in with him, he evidently expresses in the Plural Number. Hoc facite in mei commemorationem, this related to the Sacrifice, and concerned them all jointly as Priests: What appertained to Preaching and Baptising was delivered in common to them all, Euntes docete omnes Gentes, Baptizantes, etc. And likewise what belongs to Remission of Sins, Accipite Spiritum, Sanctum quorum peccata rimiseritis, remittuntur. What he gives Peter apart and peculiar, is in like manner evidently manifested by Christ's speaking to him in the Singular Number, Tu es Petrus: Dabo tibi Claves: Confirma Fratres: Pasce Oves meas. As for your Quotation out of St. Ambrose, Quod Petro dicitur, caeteris dicitur, 'Tis granted to be true in one Sense, and I acknowledge, that the Fathers have Sayings to this effect; as Origen, Dabo tibi Claves, caeteris quoque common, and others might be mentioned, which Catholic Writers do not deny, as you may see by Salmeron, Vere dicunt Patres, verba illa dicta etiam aliis; non quod ad alios immediate dicta sint, sed quod ita Petro dicta sunt, ut non sibi soli dicta: They grant the other Apostles to partake herein, but not eodum gradu: Your Authors affirm, that they did equally share with Peter, and that he had nothing egregious and singular, as Dr. Whitaker affirms; Nos non aliter quam caeteri, nullo modo concredimus accepisse, nihil proprium aut singulare tributum: But I shall return to your Quotation out of St. Ambrose, granting it true derivatively, or in a subordinate inferior acceptation; this hinders not but that these words were primordially delivered to Peter alone, tho' in a proportionate Sense, they be extendible to the Rest, as Members of the Apostolic College, and comprised in him their Head. Now if (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Purple must be judged of by Purple; I shall by confronting St. Austin with St. Ambrose authenticate this my Explication: St. Austin Quaest. 75. Vet. & Novi Testam. on Ego rogavi pro te, says thus, Pro Petro rogabat, & pro Jacobo, & pro Johanne non rogabat;  caeteros taceam, manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri; rogans enim pro Petro, pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur: Semper enim in Praeposito populus aut corripitur, aut laudatur. Here they be said to be included in Peter as their Governor. And in the same Book, Salvator cum pro se & Petro dare jubet, pro omnibus exolvisse videtur; quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causae magisterii, ita & post Salvatorem, in Petro omnes continentur, ipsum enim constituit caput eorum. Here they are said to be contained in him, as in their Head. But if any one should have as nice and sagacious a Nose as Erasmus, and fancy that by the stile he can smell out this Book not to be St. Augustin's, I shall give you another Saying out of him to the same effect out of his 124th. Tract in Johan. Cum enim Petro dicitur, sequere me, nec dicitur caeteris, qui simul aderant; profecto eum sicut Magistrum Discipuli sequebantur. Here they are included in him as their Master: In this Sense it is not improper to say, that what Christ said to Peter was spoken to the Rest; not but that the words were primarily and immediately directed to him, but because in an inferior Sense they are communicable to them all, as summed up in him. Now that the promise of the donation of the Keys was originally made to Peter solely, is clearly attested by the Authority of Eulogius Alexandrinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Our Saviour said neither to John, nor to any other of his Disciples, I will give unto thee the Keys of Heaven, but to Peter only; and upon what account they were given him, St. Chrysost. in Hom. 8. Fest. Pascal. declares, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He received the Keys as a recompense of his Orthodox Faith. And Photius much to the same Sense, in his 35th Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He delivered into the Hands of Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as a reward of his true Confession. Now as to the other Apostles having the Keys, I shall premise this in Honour to St. Peter; First, That it cannot be proved out of the Scripture, that the Keys in express words, were given to any but to him; and unless you can show me some place in the New Testament where our Saviour says to his Disciples, Conjunctim, vobis dabo Claves; or to any of them Particulatim, tibi dabo Claves, he has the best Plea and Title to them. Now as for your Quotation out of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and out of St. John. 20. 21. to prove that the other Apostles had them; I answer, That it cannot clearly be inferred from either of those places, that they had them, the word Keys being not so much as mentioned there; or if it should be granted that they had them by virtue of those places of Scripture, it does not follow they had them in the same Sense and Amplitude that Peter had: And herein I submit to Jansenius, whose words are these, Quamvis dici potest sicut Patres frequenter dicunt, etiam omnibus Apostolis traditas Claves, loquendo de Clavibus; ut per eas communiter significatur potestas remittendi retinendique peccata; sicut, ibi nulla Clavium mentio, ita non est necesse dicere Claves Petro promissas, omnibus traditas secundum eum sensum, quo Petro hic promissae; non Apostolis ibi, aut alibi Claves ita traditae. Now if either, or both of these places you cite, were equivalent to Dabo tibi Claves, what Reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular, and general promise of them; and why he should have two Promises of the same thing, whereas one had sufficed. But, Secondly, I add, That whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts, they being spoken conjointly to the Twelve, Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any; but having (over and above his portion in this joint promise) a particular one apart to himself, in which the Rest were immediately no sharers; it cannot be disproven, but (by virtue of this singular, separate Promise made to him personally, in the presence of the Rest) that he had the Keys either alone; or if the Power of the Keys were afterwards given to the Rest, that he was Supreme in it; he having besides the Power of Binding and Losing, which is an effect of the Keys: The Keys themselves, which are a Badge and Symbol of that Power.  
He then Originally received them as they are Ensigns of Supreme Ecclesiastic Power, Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christ's House, which is the Church; and was thereby constituted his Steward, and set over all his Family. But notwithstanding all this, I shall not here go about to appropriate the Power and Use of the Keys only to him; limiting them to his sole peculiar enclosure, but shall grant you that they had the use of them; for Peter did not receive them so as to retain them solely to himself, but to communicate them to the other Apostles, and following Pastors, as Thomas contra Gentes affirms, Non sic intelligitur, Petro Claves Regni commississe, ut ipse solus haberet, sed per eum derivarentur ad alios. And accordingly St. Leo, Transivit quidem in alios Apostolos vis potestatis hujus, & ad omnes Ecclesiae Principes, decreti hujus constitutio commeavit. Having yielded you thus much, I shall here only maintain the Inequality, Inferiority, and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles, to an higher, sublimer and completer degree of it in Peter: They then may be said to have received the Keys Secondarily, Derivatively, Participatively, by their Associating, Adhering, and Communicating with him their Head and Prince, to whom after a particularising manner, they were originally given to indigitate his Plenitude and Sovereignty in them.  
Origen who asks the Question, An soli Petro dantur a Christo Claves, acknowledges Peter more excelling in the Power of the Keys than the other Apostles: And in his 6th Tract. on St. Matt. he says, That there was a great difference betwixt that which was said to Peter, and what spoken to the Rest: Frst, He confesses him to have received the Keys, not as the other Apostles did, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of one Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but of many: Then he says, That that which Peter bound and loosed was ratified not in one Heaven only, but in all the Heavens. But says he, What the other Apostles did bind and lose is confirmed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Not in the Heavens, as what Peter did, but in Heaven, their Power not extending so far as Peter's did, so as to bind and lose in all the Heavens, concluding him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Melior ligator; and he most happy who is loosed by him. It is most evident from hence, that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent, and to surmount the rest in the Power of the Keys, though Maldonate thinks he did injure this his true and solid Opinion by a too subtle way of proving it, by making use of Heaven and Heaven's.  
Hilarius, who calls the other Apostles Janitores Caeli, acknowledging them to have the Keys, calls Peter by way of transcendency, O Beatus Caeli Janitor: He likewise affirms him advanced above the Rest, Quia solus respondet caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae confessione locum promeruit. And 'tis observable out of him, that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have received the Keys ob fidei suae meritum, he asserts in his Comments on Matt. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse: Thus he having a greater portion of Faith, consequently had a larger Power in the Keys, that being the reason why he recev'd them.  
As for St. Ambrose, I find him to attribue the Keys to Peter as a Character to distinguish him from the Rest, confessing him to excel them therein in his Serm. 66. Cum omnes Apostoli parem gratiam apud Dominum sanctitatis obtineant, nescio quo facto Petrus & Paulus videntur prae caeteris peculiari quadam in Salvatore fidei virtute praecellere, quod quidem ex ipsius Domini judicio possumus approbare nam; Petro sicut bono dispensatori Clavem Regni Caelestis dedit. Here he confesses them to be all equal in Sanctity, but differenced in the Keys.  
In his Lib. 10. Cap. 22. Lucae, he says, Tollit ergo Petrus aurem, quare Petrus? quia ipse est qui accepit Claves Regni Caelorum. Here he asks a Question, why Peter of all the Twelve cut off Malchas' Ear, because, says he, it was he, who received the Keys; now had he thought the other equal in the Keys with him, this had been no Reason. In the 24th Chap. of the same Book, he says much to the same effect, where speaking of Peter, Constanter qui posterior venerat primus ingreditur, quasi, qui Claves. Regni Coelorum, ut aliis aperiret, acceperat: In his Lib. 8. Cap. 9 Lucae, he mentions the Keys as his peculiar Characteristical Note and Badge, Petrus ascendit qui Claves Regni Caelorum accepit, Johannes cui committitur Mater Domini, Jacobus qui primus Sacerdotale solium ascendit.  
Cyril Catech. 6. makes it Peter's Glory to have the Keys, as it was St. Paul's to be snatched up to the Third Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
St. Chrysost. in his 21 Hom. Corinth. acknowledge him principally entrusted with them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For it was not such a wonderful thing to show the other Apostles doing this, as to demonstrate their Prince who was entrusted with the Keys doing it.  
St. Basil acknowledges him Supereminent hererein, De Judicio Dei; where speaking of him, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He that was preferred before all the rest of the Disciples, who only obtained a more noble Testimony, and proclaimed Blessed, who was entrusted with the Keys of the Kingdom.  
St. Cyprian in his Epist. to Jubain. does either acknowledge him to have received them solely, or eminently, above the Rest; Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui Claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata.  
Bede Hom. in Matt. 16. confesses he exceeded them in the Keys as he did in love, Qui Regnum Caelorum majori dilectione prae caeteris confessus est, merito, prae caeteris collatis Regni Caelestis Clavibus donatus est.  
As for St. Austin, I do acknowledge, that he affirms the Keys to be given to the Church, when they were given to St. Peter; and this is by Protestant Writers alleged as highly injurious to his Supremacy, tho' I cannot see wherein 'tis prejudicial to him, or defringes the least Ray of Claritude from his Glory, but rather guilds it with more radiant lustre, if rightly understood: For if you consult his Writings, you will find that the reason which moved him to affirm this, was, because Peter represented the Church; now in what quality he represented it, he discovers himself in his Tract ult. in Johan. Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostlus propter Apostolatûs sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam: And in Psal. 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit: And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini, B. Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatûs Principatum tenens. Here he declares his Representation of the Church to be by virtue of his Principacy and Principacy: So he may be said to represent it, not in a Parabolical Sense as its Substitute or Vicar, but Historically and Really, as its Governor and Primate, and consequently he received the Keys as one that had right and relation a part rei, not as an Attorney who takes possession for another, but as a Prince receives the Keys of a City for himself, tho' for the benefit of his Nation. He received them immediately: The Church by him, as Tertul. affirms in Scorp. Memento Claves Coeli hic Dominum Petro & per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse. Dr. Stapleton says, That Peter received them formalitèr for himself, but finalitèr for the benefit of the Church, for the Power of the Keys was not limited to his Person, but derivable to the Governors of the Church, even to the consummation of the World.  
One thing I shall add more, which tends much to Peter's Glory, which is, that in St. Austin's Judgement, none of the Apostles represented the Church but he. De Agon. Christi: Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, etc. And in Serm. 49. in Evang. Johan. Dicit Petro in quo uno format Ecclesiam, etc. And in Serm. 13. Evang. Matt. In illo ergo uno Apostolo, id est, Petro in ordine Apostolorum primo & precipuo in quo figurabatur Eccclesia. He then only of all the Apostles representing the Church, was entrusted not only with the Keys of Heaven, but with the Keys of the Church, as St. Austin affirms Serm. 124. the temp. Credendae erant Petro Claves Ecclesiae, imo creditae sunt ei Claves Regni Coelorum. He then may be said to have received them in their largest latitude and extent, and in their Independent Jurisdiction, as Head of the Church, and of the Apostolic Choir: the Rest received them in a lower, narrower acceptation as Members of that Society. He received them immediately, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; From our Lord himself, from our Lords own Mouth, as Chrysostom affirms. They received them by a Proxy or participatively; either by him, or as Photius thinks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the Person of their Prince. 'Tis most certain, he first received them, and as Tertull. de pudic. affirms, he first made use of them, Primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum Coelestis Regni. Optatus con. Parm. says, The Keys were given to him only, to preserve Unity, Stant tot innocentes &, peccator accipit Claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur; but then he acknowledges they were to be communicated to the Rest; but withal grants Peter the preference herein: De Schism. Lib. 7. Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit, & Claves Regni Coelorum communicandas coeteris solus accepit. If you do believe thus much, I shall hold no further Dispute with you about the Keys. Now tho' I have already said something to your Quotation in St. Matt. 18. 18. I shall here make some addition. That the Fathers did not attribute an equality of Power in the Keys to the rest of the Apostles with Peter, by virtue of that place, is evident by their Expounding it of Fraternal Correption, giving by these words to the injured party Power of binding and losing the Offender: This is St. Chrysost. Sense of this place. And St. Hierom likewise, In qualibet causâ nos frater loeserit, demittendi habemus potestatem. And St. Ambrose says, Cum concordaveris cum fratre solvisti eum. Peter also seems to take it in this meaning; for presently upon Christ's saying, Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven: He asks him, Domine, quoties peccabit in me frater & dimittam ei? Origen comes nearest the point of any, and does clearly decide it in his Notes on St. Matt. where he says, that those words, Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound on Heaven, were common both to Peter and those that did admonish their Brothers: But as for the words Dabo tibi Claves, he says, they were delivered separate apart to him, that he might have something peculiar and egregious above the Rest; his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And in the same place he does acknowledge, that what was spoken apart to him, did far exceed what was spoken in common to the Rest; those words do really appear more Authoritative and Extensive than the Power of binding and losing granted the Rest, which contains not the total, but partial Acts of the Keys; for they, besides their including Power of Solution and Alligation are Badges of Dominion: This made our Saviour, when he gave his Apostles the Power of binding and losing to make no mention of the Keys, reserving that Honour for St. Peter. As for your Citation out of St. John. 20. v. 5. here is likewise no mention of the Keys. Christ did by virtue of these words give them all full Jurisdiction and Authority over the Universe. In this their Apostolic Commission, they were all equal; but this was granted them not in reference to one another, but in relation to the whole World, of which they were all Princes and Heads, whereas Dabo tibi Claves was spoken to Peter, apart, after a particular manner, not competent to the other, with a particular Blessing, sprung from a particular Act of his confessing Christ his Divinity, Christ alluding to his Name, and declaring to him his Father's Name, and this was done in the presence of the Rest, to show them he designed him their Head and Prince.  
The next thing I am to remark, is your Quotation out of St. Ambrose, Claves illas Regni Coelorum in Beato Petro cuncti suscipimus. Then you give me a check for saying they received them, à Petro, whereas you say it was in Petro. I shall not concern myself in the defence of this Criticism, I know there is much to be said for either of the Opinions; as you may see in Salmeron, some say à, some in, and some per Petrum, as you may see in Tertull. Scorp. Nam si adhuc clausum putas esse Coelum, memento Claves ejus hic Dominum Petro, & per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse. And accordingly, Greg. Nyss. de Cast. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He gave to the Bishops the Key of Celestial Honours, per Petrum. St. Ambrose Lib. Sacerd. dign. says, Cum Petro, cum illo suscipimus omnes; but I shall wave these niceties, and come to your Quotation, Claves illas Regni Coelorum in B. Petro cuncti suscipimus: And here you left out a very material word, Sacerdotes. The Fathers did not mean by this saying a Minister of a Separate, Reformed Church, but a Priest of the Catholic Church, and the word Priest doth imply both Altar and Sacrifice. Having thus glossed upon the words, I grant them to be true. The Master of the Sentences acknowledges every Priest to receive the Keys with his Sacerdotal Order, Lib. 4. Distinct. 19 Cum enim recipit ordinem Sacerdotalem simul & has Claves recipit. Now tho' every Parish Priest has the Keys as really and as truly as a Bishop or Primate, yet he has them not in so ample and full a manner as they have, but in a Circumscribed, limited Sense, he having no power to use them but on such as are in subjection to him, which are fewer in number than they who are under a Bishop: But upon examining this Author, out of whom you have quoted so much, I find him to ascribe the Power of the Keys only to the true Church, Jus ligandi atque solvendi solis permissum est Sacerdotibus: recte ergo Ecclesia hoc sibi vindicat; quae veros habet Sacerdotes Haeresis vindicare non potest quae veros non habet Sacerdotes, Lib. 4. Dist. 18. And now it will seem a very fit time for you to look about you, for your Case is very dubious, and I must confess, I cannot see what Title you have to the Keys. You, who who are no Priest of the Catholic Church, but only a Minister of a Particular one, fallen off from her. You, who Writ and Preach against Catholic Doctrine and Unity in Justification of your Schismatical Defection. You, who have so much distended your Nerves, in injuring not only Peter, whom our Saviour entrusted with the Keys, but likewise in abusing his Successors who possess them after him. You, who by Excommunication are severed from the Body of the Catholic Church, as Sarmentum & Ramale emortuum, how you should have them, I cannot imagine: And I may ask you, as Optatus did the Donatists, Lib. 2. Cont. Parm. Vnde est quod Claves Regni vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus & audaciis militatis. St. Cyprian will tell you in his Epist. 73. Foris nec ligari aliquid posse, nec solvi: And in his 6th. Epistle, Dicimus omnes omnino. Haereticos atque Schismaticos, nihil habere potestatis ac juris: But on the other side Theophyl. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; They have power to lose and bind who are honoured with Episcopal Grace according to Peter. But before I quit this Point I shall very seriously recommend to you the Saying of St. Hierom in his Comments on Matt. 16. where speaking of the Power of the Keys, he acknowledges Peter to have received it, Speciatim, especially, particularly, Quod quicunque ab unitate fidei & Societate Ecclesiae se separaverit, nec a peccatis solvi, nec Caelum possit ingredi. By this you may apprehend your deplorable condition, being separated from the Unity of the Catholic Faith, and from the Society of the Catholic Church. Be so indulgent to yourself, as not to use any Sophistry in gulling yourself. Permit this Saying of St. Hierom not to float like a Buoy on the Surface of your Brain, but to subside to your interior and deepest consideration. Be so kind likewise to your Flock, whose Opinion of your Learning and Orthodoxy has made them ductile to your Guidance, and recipient of your Impresses, as to impose no more false Tenets on their obvious credulity. 'Tis your Duty to instill into them saving Truths, and not to infect them with pernicious Doctrine. Pliny makes mention of a Poisonous Fountain in Arabia, where the Shepherds pay the price of the Sheep that drink thereof and perish; what punishment would that Shepherd deserve, that should poison his Flock himself? and how far more he, who having, the care of Rational Sheep committed to him, should in lieu of feeding them with the sincere Milk, taint them with destructive Principles? You know very well how often you have preached over those Papers you sent me, and how, unsuspectedly they were imbibed by your greedy Auditory. Having now laid open those many Errors contained in them, you would show yourself an ingenuous Person if you would uncurtain to them those many falsehoods you have vented under the fallacious Mantle of sound Truths; By such candid an Action, as by a piacular Victim, you might efface that guilt you have contracted by your slanderous reviling the Catholic Church, and injurious Representations of her Doctrines; I cannot imagine, but that you must needs be conscious to yourself of your great miscarriages herein, and that a Person of your Reading must know better things, and can teach too, if you please; but whether a long Habit or Interest retards you herein, i'll not pretend to define. I shall only tell you what the Shepherds in Hesiods Theogonia say of themselves, and so conclude this Point, leaving it to you to make Application;  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

Lies that resemble Truth we know to teach,  
And if we please, the ancient Faith can preach.    

CHAP. IU. Of St. Peter 's being called Satan: And of his Denial.  
IT will not now seem incongruous to say something of Christ's calling St. Peter Satan, not long after he had told him that he would build his Church on him, and had promised him the Keys: For this I find objected by several, as if by calling him so, Christ had evacuated what he promised him before. But it is to be considered, that this happened betwixt the time of the Promise and Performance which was not exhibited till after Christ's Resurrection. St. Hierom on his Comments on Matt. 16. seems with this solution to satisfy the Objection, Prudens lector inquirat quomodo post tantam beatitudinem, etc. nunc audiat. Vade retro me Satana; aut quae sit tam repentina conversio, ut post tanta praemia Satanas appelletur. Sed si consideret qui hoc quaerit, Petro illam beatitudinem, potestatem, & aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam, non in praesenti datam intelliget, Aedificabo, inquit, super te Ecclesiam meam, & Portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, & dabo tibi Claves Regni Coelorum, omnia de futuro, quae si statim dedisset ei, nunquam in eo pravae confessionis error invenisset locum. And accordingly Theophyl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The word Dabo signifies the time to come, to wit, after his Resurrection. But if that for which he is checked be well inspected, you will find two things which much extenuate his fault; the one is his great Love and Tenderness to Christ, declared in these words, Propitius esto tibi Domine; the other is his ignorance of Christ's design in coming into the World. Now he is called Satan, not as if he willingly or maliciously did go about to hinder the Salvation of Mankind, but because he out of ignorance of God's Eternal Decree, gave Christ that Advice of favouring himself, which had it been followed, would have obstructed our Redemption which was designed us by the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. St. Austin on his 49th Tract. Johan. does acquit him of any Crime herein, Nec Petro tamen humana ignorantia proficit ad crimen, non enim ei Pater adhuc omne passionis Mysterium revelaverat, voluerunt consilium dare Domino, ne moriretur qui venerat mori, ne ipsi morerentur.  
The next thing of this nature which I shall insist on, is, his Denial, which by several is highly exaggerated, as if all his Dignities had thereby been forfeited and lost; but in this his fault, it is likewise to be considered, that it was committed before his instalment in his Supreme Power, which was not solemnised till Christ returned Victorious from the Grave. It was before he was virtute indutus ex alto; it was before he had received the Holy Ghost by Christ's Insufflation, Timore Petrus ter negavit, nondum enim acceperat Spiritum Sanctum; accepto postea Spiritu Sancto cum fiduciâ caepit praedicare; qui ad vocem ancillae ter negaverat, accepto Spiritu Sancto inter flagella Principum confessus est quem negaverat, says St. Ambrose, Psal. 90.  
The Fathers allege several Reasons why God permitted this Great Apostle to commit this Offence. The first is, that he might be proposed to us as a pattern not to despair when we fall into any Sin; this is Theophyl. Sense of it on Luke 22. The Second is, That he might be a happy Example unto us of not persevering in our Sins, but by a speedy Repentance to lament, detest and forsake them. The Third is mentioned by St. Austin, Ideo B. Petrum paululum subdeseruit, ut in illo totum humanum genus posset agnoscere nihil se sine gratiâ Dei praevalere. But the proper and adequate Reason is, because Christ designing him to be the Supreme Ruler of the Church, whom he did purpose to entrust with the Keys (by which he gave him full Power to absolve or retain Sins) that he might be compassionate and favourable to poor Penitent Sinners in absolving them, as Christ had mercifully forgiven him. And this is clearly St. Austin's Sense of it in Serm. 124. de Temp.  Ecclesiae Rectori futuro ignoscendi peccatoribus quaedam regula poneretur: And in the same place, Divinae Providentiae secretum ita temperavit atque permisit, ut primus ipse laberetur ac rueret in peccatum, quo ergo peccantes duriorem sententiam proprii casus intuitu temperaret. For Peter was thought to be by nature very severe and rigid; and lest he should be too strict a Censor of Human Frailties, God suffered him to fall into this Sin, that by reflecting on his own Offence he might be more gentle and indulgent to other Transgressor's,  in Clavibus esset fidelis Janitor, in sententiis clementissimus Dispensator; erat enim reverâ Petrus paulo durior & severus, says the same Author. This is likewise St. Chrysostom's Opinion of it, in Petrum & Eliam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was permitted to Sin, that he, as being without Sin might not be rigid and averse to pardon: He who was entrusted with the Church, the Pillar of the Churches, the Haven of Faith, even Peter the Master of the World, was suffered to trespass, that this Man's being permitted to Sin, might become an Argument of favour to others.  
St. Austin in his Serm. 124. de Temp. is pleased to call this a small fault in him, Exiguae culpae permittitur subjacere tantus Apostolus, etc. Not but that the Offence was foul enough, but because it was of so short a continuance, he immediately recovering himself by a sincere Repentance. It was a short Eclipse, a Trip, rather than a Fall; a Verbal, rather than a Real; a Labial, rather than a Mental Abnegation, In Domini passione titubat Petrus Sermone non Mente. His Tongue had no sooner disowned him, but his Heart protesting against it, proclaimed him with penitential Tears, Voce visus est denegare, lachrymis fatebatur, says St. Ambrose. And if the Devil, as Theophyl. affirms, did in this storm blow off some of his Leaves, the Root was sound and vivid. Now if the Carriage of the other Disciples be well inspected, I much question whether they will be found in this juncture truer to our Saviour than he: For if he did deny him, and Judas did betray him, how honourably the rest did behave themselves, Theophyl. will tell you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The rest fled for't: And this Action of theirs was not only a disowning of him, but a sign of a fearful, distrustful temper. Peter only of the Disciples had the Heart to follow him, and expose himself to danger. St. John did indeed accompany him, but this was not out of pure Valour and Gallantry as Peter did, for St. John run no Rischie herein, he relying on the High Priests acquaintance for his safeguard and protection: And this was well observed by Theophyl. who says, he did not follow Christ as (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a Disciple, but as an Acquaintance of the High Priest. But if we consider the dirity of that dreadful time, when he denied his Master, it will much lessen his fault; it was when the Power of Darkness ruled with its Black Sceptre; It was when the Sun was Obtenebrated, the World shaked with unusual Tremours, and obdurate Rocks cleft asunder; than it was when the destined Rock of the Church was moved. So I shall not (as some Petulant and Saucy Pens have done) exprobrate this Offence to him, but endeavour to imitate him as an incomparable pattern of a speedy Penitent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For he even in his failures is profitable to us, by his hasty Tears, abolishing his Offence, and being shaken for a little time, he became the Foundation of the Faithful for ever. Now that after his fall, he was not only restored to his former Dignities, but advanced to a higher Degree, I shall prove when I come to treat of his Commission.   

CHAP. V The Introduction to Pasce Oves meas. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherein St. Peter exceeded the Rest as Pastor. Whether Pasce Oves meas were an Exhortation or a Commission? Why St. Peter was sorry for Christ's thrice ask him. The Reason of the trine Interrogation. That the foregoing words were spoken immediately to St. Peter only.  
HAving thus traveled through all these several Stages, I am at length arrived to Pasce Oves meas; which words I find to be strongly urged by Catholic Writers, in defence of Peter's Supreme Pastoral Jurisdiction; and impugned by Protestant Authors with all their Force and Armoury, as being most Emphatical for the establishment of his Ecclesiastic Praefecture, Nullo in loco adeo aperte vidtur soli Petro totius Ecclesiae cura committi atque ubi ei dicitur, Pasce Oves meas, says the Archbishop Spalleto. Hic est ille unicus locus quo Petri Papatus nititur. Aut hic Petro Papatus, aut nusquam datur, was Dr. Whitakers Sense of this place. These words being confessedly thus momentous, I shall expend some Oil and Pains in giving them a due discussion; for this must be done examinately not cursorily, according to what Maldonate affirms, Locus est gravis, & in quo paulo altius figere pedem oportet. It shall therefore now be my province to make a strict revision of what I wrote on this place, and maturely to poise what you returned me in opposition thereto; this I shall perform, not only for your Answer, but for my own satisfaction: For I can with a Serene and Unclouded Conscience affirm, that I embraced the Catholic Faith, not by the persuasion of any Temporal or Mundan Interest, nor by the insidious enticements of any Persons whatsoever, as you have figured to yourself; but as attracted thereto purely by the Alliciency and Magnetism of Truth; and you shall find me correspondently to maintain none of my Tenets, either with Obstinacy or with Unclassical Authors, but by approved uncontested Authority: You have not now to do with a Pertinacious, Undisciplined Fanatic, but with a Candidate of Literature, a Votary of Antiquity; if you can prove, that I go contrariant to her, stemming her Sacred Current, I shall acknowledge my Error, and sing my Palinode upon your convincing me: But notwithstanding this my pliant and yielding inclination, you shall find me severe enough to such as endeavour by delusory Impostures to obtrude their Smoke on me, offering Fallacies washed with Chemical Tinctures, such Persons I have just reason to shun and abhor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now how sincere you have dealt by me in Matters of Religion will be obvious to the dimmest Eye, when I shall have ungilt your Varnish, unmasked your specious Artifices, detected your Wiles and Doubles, than it will be discernible whether you have endeavoured to reduce me to the right Opinion, or seduce me into Erroneous Principles.  
The first thing you attack is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I affirmed to signify Regere & gubernare, as well as Pascere: To this you make no other Reply than this; but aliter pascit Rex, aliter Episcopus. This seemed to me a mere evasive sleight, and I must acknowledge my want of Augury to Divine what you mean by the word Rex, for I never ascribed any Royalty or Monarchy to Peter, but what was merely Spiritual: If this than be all you have to say against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it amounts to no more than a Greek Expletive Particle which signifies nothing; it remains then that it denotes to Rule as well as to Feed; and if you think I did not sufficiently prove it in my first Papers, I shall here give you full satisfaction. St. Austin. Tract. 123. in Johan. gives a clear Gloss on Oves pascendas, id est, says he, docendas regendasque. St. Ambrose Lib. 10. Cap. 24. on St. Luke, speaking of Peter, Oves pascere jubetur perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret: And Theophylact, John 21. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now besides these Testimonies, Reason will carry it on my side, for to this very Intention our Saviour changed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which implies not all the Functions of Pastoral Authority, but only what appertain to feed, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies both to Feed and to Rule; this was observed by Erasmus in his Notes on this place. Bis dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Pasce sive ale, semel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. rege: Thus the word is commonly used, and it being applied to Reasonable Creatures, it imports Rule and Government: For this cause Kings are called pastors, as in Isaia 44. Qui dico Cyro pastor meus es: And accordingly the Five Tribes spoke to David, Dixit Dominus ad te, tu pasces populum meum Israel, & tu eris Dux super Israel. Thus the Emperor Tiberius in Suetonius compares himself to a Shepherd, and his Subjects to Sheep, Praesidibus onerandas tributo provincias suadentibus rescripsit, Boni Pastoris esse tondere pecus non deglubere, which Dion renders thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato in his 4th Book de Repub. calls the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Homer calls Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Hesiod likewise in his Theog. calls Jason so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence Cyril Glaphyr, Lib. 1. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 'Tis usual with the Divine Writ, and with the Wise Men of Greece to call the Governors of Nations, Cities or People, Shepherds of the People. Xenophon says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Actions of a good Shepherd and a good King are nigh related. And St. Basil. Homil. de Mar. Mam. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Pastoral and Regal Art are Sisters, differing only in this, the one is entrusted with the Government of Irrational, the other of Rational Creatures. These Authorities I look on to be a sufficient Guard to secure what I wrote on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Next you affirm, That the other Apostles had Commission to Feed and Rule the whole Flock as much as Peter. This your Assertion I cannot assent to; yet I will grant, that the other Apostles were Capita & pastors totius Mundi. Having most full and ample Power to found Churches every where, to Convert, Baptise and Preach to every Creature; and that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All in Common entrusted with the world; the whole Universe being their Diocese. Yet notwithstanding all this, they did not equalise Peter: for he besides his equal share with the rest in that General Commission to teach all Nations, given to him jointly with them, had a particular Commission apart solely to himself, in which the rest were no immediate sharers, not only to strengthen and confirm, but also to feed and govern the rest, they being included in the words Oves meas, and consequently recommended to his Pastoral Care and Regency; who by virtue of these our Saviors words was created, not only chief Pastor of all other Christians, but even of the Apostles themselves. He then only had Commission to feed the whole Flock of Christ, taken in a Collective Sense, as comprehending all Christians, and likewise the Apostles themselves; as I shall hereafter Illustrate.  
Your following Attempt to lessen Peter's Power is, by assaying to take his Commission from him; affirming Pasce Oves meas to be an Exhortation and no Commission. This Artifice I find to be made use of by several Modern Protestant Authors. Dr. Hammond says, All that can by any torture be extracted from it, is an Exhortation to a diligent discharge of that Office to which he was before Commission'd. Dr. Stillingfleet in his Part. 2. C. 7. Those words contain no particular Commission to Peter, but a more vehement Exhortation to the discharge of his Duty. Dr. Barrow in his Treatise of the Supremacy, These words are not Institutive or Collative of Power, but rather only Admonitive, Exhortative to Duty. Thus they agree in their united Verdict: But the words being pronounced by a Lord to his Servant, Imperatively, have no Lineaments of an Exhortation, but of a Commission: And accordingly I find the Fathers (whose Sense I rather choose to follow, than such Authors) to Interpret them; looking on them as a Command, Commission, Injunction; as a great trust committed to him, as will clearly appear by the following Quotations, Mandatum de pascendis Ovibus suis unum idemque ter praecepit. August. Lib. 3. de Consens. Evang. And in the same place, Petrum ter interrogavit utrum ab illo amaretur, & ei pascendas commendavit Oves. Dominus respondenti amorem commendat agnos suos, Serm. 149. de Temp. Tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem suscepit. In festo Cathedrae Petri. Cui pascendas Oves suas post Resurrectionem Dominus commendavit. Cont. Epist. Manih. And again, Pastor est Petrus, cui pascendas Oves credidisti, ipse commendasti. Interrogatur amor, imperatur labour. Festo Cathed. Petri Oves pascere jubetur, Ambr. Lib. 10. Cap. 14. Luc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrysost. Hom. 87. Johan. He asketh thrice, and thrice commands the same things.  
St. Bernard, Serm. 76. Cant. calls it in plain terms, a Commission, Non otiosè toties repetitum est, Petre amas me in Commissione Ovium: By virtue of this Mandate St. Chrysost. in his Comments on St. John does acknowledge him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To have the Government of his Brethren in his Hands: And on Acts 1. that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Entrusted by Christ with the Fold: And St. Ambrose says, that he was made Pastor Dominici Gregis, by virtue of these words.  
Thus you may see by the joint suffrages of the Fathers, that it was a Trust, Mandate, or Commission which was given to Peter after Dinner, it being customary with our Saviour to do great things after Meals, as Maldonate observes, Res magnas post Prandium aut Coenam fecit Christus. After Supper he instituted the B. Eucharist; and now having eaten some broiled Fish with his Disciples, being mindful of the Promise he had made to Peter of building his Church on him, here he performs it, creating him Supreme Head and Pastor of his Church, Constituting the Church-Government Monarchical. And 'tis observable, that as in the Promise he calls Peter, Simon Barjona; so here in the Performance he calls him Simon Jona, to show that the Performance was made to the same Identical Person to whom it was promised. The Promise was ushered in by an Interrogatory, so was the Performance; the Promise was made upon his egregious Faith, surpassing that of the Rest; the Performance was exhibited upon his extraordinary Love, surmounting that of the Rest. As for the other Apostles, they before this, had their Warrant and Authority consigned them when our Saviour breathed on them, Commissionating them, saying, Sicut misit me Pater, etc. Euntes, Docete omnes Nationes, etc. This was their unlimited Commission, whereas the first was confined to the lost Sheep of Israel, the Samaritans and the Gentiles being excepted: This was the General Commission given in Common to the Apostolic College, in which every Apostle had an equal share. Now Peter besides, and above the proportion he had in this Grant, besides the Power he had jointly with the Rest, receives an Authority proper and peculiar to himself, Christ superadding something apart to him above the Rest for the excellency of his Faith, and prefulgency of his Love; the ultimate end of which Action was to preserve Unity, not only in Church-Government, but likewise in Faith. Quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem süam parem tribuat potestatem, says St. Cyprian, sicut misit me, etc. tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipiente suâ authoritate disposuit. I shall conclude this Point with a Saying of Jansenius, Cum primâ apparitione Apostolis parem contulit potestatem, etc. nunc ad tollendum Schisma & ut Ecclesia una monstretur, unus omnibus praeficitur.  
But now after all this, you say 'tis a sign it was an Exhortation, because, Peter was sorry for its Tergemination, which he would not have been at the receipt of a Commission. This your Reason seems to me very pleasant and divertive; I perceive you would have had him very debonair at this his Investiture, as you would be upon obtaining a Fat and Unctuous Benefice. But first, I must tell you, he had little Reason to be very cheerly; for Christ had no sooner given him his Commission, but he allayed his Joy by foretelling him his Crucifixion. But I find you to be guilty of a wide mistake concerning the Original of his Sorrow, which I conceive to be derived from Springs very distant from your Apprehensions of it; for Petrus mirabatur & cum quodam taedio audiebat quoerentem, quem nover at omnia scientem, August. de Temp. 149. Serm. Contristatus est quod saepe interrogatus est ab eo qui sciret quod interrogabat, Serm. 50. in Evang. Johan. And again, Contristatus est Petrus quod eum tertio interrogat, quasi ille qui vidit conscientiam negationis, non videbat fidem confitentis. St. Ambrose glosses much to the same effect, Petrus doluit quia interrogatus est, Amas me? Quod enim manifestum erat, dolebat quasi incognitum quaeri, Lucae Lib. 6. 7. And on the last Chapter of Luke he says, Contristatur Petrus quia tertio interrogatur, Amas me? is enim interrogatur de quo dubitatur. And on Psal. 90. enarrat. Taedio affectus Petrus, quasi dubitaret Dominus noster de amore ejus: This may suffice to satisfy you concerning the true Reason of his sorrow.  
One thing I shall add more on this matter, and that is, concerning Dr. Barrow, who affirms, the words Pasce Oves meas, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Renovation of the Apostolate formerly granted; as if by these words he had recovered it again after he was fallen from it by his denial: That the words did include his restauration to his Apostleship I grant; but that they employed no more than that, which the Doctor would from thence infer, I deny. And to make this fully understood, I will suppose some Favourite of a Prince, who had a place at Court, through some misdemeanour incurring his Master's Displeasure to lose it, and after the decurrence of some time, to be so happy as by regaining his Prince's Favour to be promoted to a higher Office than before: This Favourite may be said to have acquired his former place, tho' indeed he be advanced above it to a higher Dignity. The same was Peter's Case, who after his Fall, purchasing Christ's Favour by a speedy Repentance, was not only readmitted into the Society of the Twelve, but was exalted to a higher degree, so as to become the Prince and Pastor of that Company. This is the Real Sense of the Fathers herein, Post lacrymas Pastor assumptus est, & alios regendos accipit, qui seipsum prius non regerat, says St. Ambrose de Paenitentia Petri. And Enarrat. Psa. 43. Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur, postquam tentatus à Diabolo est. Majorem gratiam reperit quam amisit, tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum Gregem accipit, says St. Austin Fest. Cath. Petri. And Arnobius on Psal. 138. says, Major gradus redditur ploranti quam aufertur neganti. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Lib. 6 contra Judaeos. Peter after that heinous denial of his, because he presently bethought himself of his Sin, and wept bitterly, he so washed away that Sin, as to become the Prince of the Apostles, and to have the whole World delivered into his Hands.  
The last thing you take notice of on this Matter, is, That I said Pasce Oves meas was spoken to Peter thrice upon his trine Negation; but you suppose I will not say he merited it for his threefold denial: This supposition of yours might very well have been omitted as unnecessary; and I may very well wave it, as undeserving any notice should be taken of it; what I said was this, That our Saviour asked Peter thrice, suitable to his trine denial (as St. Austin observed, Additur trinae negationi trina confessio) whether he loved him, etc. This seems not at all amiss, or obnoxious to any exception, but you had a mind to carp at every thing. Now tho' such parvitudes as these are not worth the defending, yet because you Cavil at them I shall not desert them as undefensible; for I believe I can produce better Authority to maintain them than you can to impugn them, Ter me negasti timendo: Ter me confitere amando, Ambros. Psal. 90. Enarrat. And in his Apol. David. Cap. 9  trinae lapsum negationis professio Charitatis toties repetita deleret. St. Austin, Serm. 50. Secund. Johan.  trinâ confessione amoris deleret trinum peccatum negationis. Theophyl. on John 21. gives two Reasons of our Saviors ask thrice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Both manifesting what a great care he took of the Faithful, and withal, by a trine Interrogation and Confession he cures his trine Negation.  
The next that encounters my view, is your Quotation out of St. Austin, by which I perceive, that the drift and scope of your design is to prove the words Pasce Oves meas, to be spoken to the Rest as well as to Peter: This is the White at which you levelly; the words are these, Cum illi dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, si amas me, pasce, etc. This is all you quote; but upon examining the place out of which these words were taken, I find the foregoing words to be these, Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, huic enim Ecclesiae Claves Regni Caelorum datae sunt, cum Petro datae sunt; & cum ei dicitur, omnibus dicitur, Pasce Oves meas; August. de Ago Christianâ. Here you are to understand, that in his Judgement Peter only of all the Apostles personated the Catholic Church, and that the Keys are said to be given to her when they were given to him; namely, as to its Head, Primate and Rector, as I have already proved out of his Writings: In this only Sense I have already fully proved, that those words which were originally and immediately spoken to Peter are said to be spoken to the Rest, they being all Epitomised and comprised in him as their Chief: In this Acceptation I grant, that Pasce Oves meas, might be spoken to all the Disciples, and in no other aspect. Now this does not at all hinder, but that these words were spoken primordially to Peter solely; and this is acknowledged by St. Austin himself, in his Book de Pastoribus, where speaking of our Saviour, Tunc ideo commendavit Oves, quia invenit Petrum; imo vero in ipso Petro unitatem commendavit; multi erant Apostoli, & uni dicitur, Pasce Oves meas. And again in the same Book, Petro dixerat, Pasce Oves meas: quid ergo faciemus? Cum Petro commendantur Oves; non ibi dixit Dominus, Ego pascam Oves meas, non tu, sed Petre, Amas me? Pasce Oves meas. And again, Sic certe a Domino ad Beatum Petrum dicitur, Petre, Amas me? & ille, tu scis, Domine, quia amo te. Et cum tertio fuisset interrogatus, & trinâ responsione fuisset subsecutus, repetitum est a Domino tertiò, Pasce Oves meas.  
Your following attempt is to prove those words to be spoken to all Pastors as well as to Peter, by your Saying cited out of St. Basil, Consequenter omnibus Pastoribus dictum est, etc. But this your Quotation does you no Service at all, it amounting to no more than what I frankly grant; for I do, as well as you, believe the words to be consequently derivatively, extensively spoken to every Pastor, all being Figured and Represented in the Supreme Pastor St. Peter, as Austin avouches, in festo Petri & Pauli. In uno Petro figurabatur unitas omnium Pastorum, sed bonorum. Now the most inferior Pastor is as really one as a Bishop, tho' his Sheep be not so numerous, nor his Fold so large; and I grant, that these words were in a subordinate secondary Sense, spoken not only to the other Apostles, but to all lawful Pastors; for Peter, tho' he were the Chief, was not the Sole Pastor, Pastor bonus Christus, quid Petrus? Nun Pastor bonus? Quid Paulus, quid caeteri Apostoli, quid Beati Episcopi, Martyrs, quid Sanctus Cyprianus? nun omnes Pastores boni, non mercenarii? as St. August. affirms in his 50th Serm. Evang. Johan. Neither did he feed the Flock alone, but had the Apostles his Coadjutors, and Compresbyters, whom he exhorts to feed the Flock, not the Universal, but the Particular one, Pascite gregem qui in vobis, the Prerogative of feeding the Universal Church, including both the Apostles and other Christians, being delegated to Peter only, as Supreme Pastor of the Church; I therefore affirm, that the words were principally, immediately, and initially spoken to him alone; but I acknowledge likewise, that in a Proportioned Adequate Sense, In quodam Modo, they suit and quadrate with all true Pastors: For as Salmeron affirms, Quod summo Pastori dicitur, id suo modo & proportione servatâ, aliis minoribus Pastoribus dictum est; Because they who are called as Fellow-Labourers into part of the Pastoral Function and Solicitude, are to exscribe and imitate the Form that Peter used in Feeding, Loving, Cherishing, and Defending his Flock. But I shall now come to your Quotation out of St. Basil, which I found to be in his Book de Vita solit. Cap. 23. and upon my examining it, taking in those words which were Introductive to it, I discovered it to be the most destructive and fatal thing to your purpose, that was imaginable; the previous words which you suppressed, making wholly against you; they are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For a Governor 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 yond love me more than these? Feed my Sheep. Here St. Basil does remarkably affirm what I go about to prove; namely, That Christ created Peter the Pastor of his Church after himself by virtue of these words. But what shall I think of your concealing these Lines? Certainly the Action was unworthy and disingenuous; especially in you, who pretend so much to Truth and Honest deal; and you could herein have no Reverence for the Author, or Kindness for me, whom by such deeds you cannot pretend to instruct, but impose on. I do not wonder to see the Fathers so copiously quoted by you, now I see 'tis your practice to Cull out here and there a Line, without perpending its relation, either to the foregoing or following Matter, Ends without Beginnings, Beginnings without Ends. Interpretes falsi extrema ponunt, & superiora praetereunt, partis immemores & partem subdolè comprimentes, says St. Cyprian, De unitate. And St. Chrysost. to the same effect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, De Verbis Isaiae Serm. 1. To cut off words from what follows, to draw them from their Relation, to take words naked and destitute of the assistance of the praecedaneous or subsequent Matter. The best palliation I can make for you, is, that you did not consult St. Basil, as you once fancied I did not Theophyl. but that you gleaned it up out of some Author ready trimmed for your purpose, and being first deceived yourself, endeavoured to deceive me; this is a branch of what the Apostle says, Decipientes & decepti: Therefore for the future be cautious what Authors you trust.  
Now besides what has been already alleged to prove Pasce Oves meas, to be primitively spoken to Peter only, I shall in lieu of a Mantissa add the ensuing Authorities. St. Chrysost. Hom. 87. Johan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Jesus says unto Simon Jona, Do you love me more than these? Feed my Sheep. Why did he pass by the rest, and speak to him about the Sheep? because he was the Prince of the Apostles, the Mouth of the Disciples, and the top of the Society. Theophyl. in his Comments on St. John 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; After Christ had concluded his Dinner, he delivered into the Hands of Peter the Government of all the Sheep, he delivered them to this Man, not to any other. By these Quotations 'tis manifest, that Christ spoke only to him, directing his Order solely to him, and that he said nothing to the Rest altho' they stood by, having given them their Commission before. Theophyl. gives two Reasons of this; the main and principal was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Because he was the Prince and Mouth of the Apostolic Order. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Then to show him he ought to be of good courage, as having the Sin of his denial expugned,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, St. Cyril on St. John, He only asks Simon, altho' the other Apostles stood by.   

CHAP. VI That St. Peter 's surpassing love to Christ was the Foundation of his Prelation. That Peter by virtue of Pasce Oves meas had Universal Jurisdiction. Several nice Distinctions answered. That the words Oves meas included the other Apostles. That St. Peter was the only Supreme Pastor: With an Apostrophe to him.  
BUT besides the Authority of these Fathers, the Context highly favours my Opinion, perspicuously evidencing these words originally to be spoken to Peter only, and my Argument runs thus, To him only it was replied Pasce Oves meas, who was asked, Diligis me plus his? But Peter only was asked that Question; therefore the Reply was directed to him solely, the other Apostles being most visibly secluded and shut out by the Comparison Plus his: But besides this, the following Discourse 'twixt our Saviour and him, further illustrates this with a Meridian Ray; he only being said to be Contristated; to him only Crucifixion was foretold; to him only it was said Thou, when thou growest Old, etc. But if this be not a sufficient Mercury's Rod to chase away your Cavils; Do but weigh in just Balances the Reason why our Saviour said these words to him, and you will find it discordant to Reason to admit the other Apostles equally with him concerned in them. For if Christ had designed him to be no more a Pastor than any of the Rest by virtue of these words, the Question had been more rationally stated thus, Simon Jona, do you love me as much as any of the other do? But our Saviour ask him, whether he loved him more than the Rest, did by the shape and frame of the Question intent him a particular Superiority above the Rest: He then loving Christ more than they, had a larger Commission, a more diffused Authority, a particular Jurisdiction and Grant to feed Christ's Sheep more than they had. This is Maldonatus' Sense of it, Hic Christus a Petro singular quiddam requirit, quod caeteri non habent; aliquid ergo vicissim illi dare vult proprium & singular, quo caeteris antecederet. This seems to me most serenely to be the Native and Genuine meaning of our Saviors Question, disarrayed of all Heretical Depravations, otherwise I desire to know, to what purpose and designment was the Interrogation of a greater degree of love; why not of an equal portion, if the Reward were to be equal? Now that this his egregious Love, was the Motive that induced Christ to grant him this Commission; and that it was a necessary and essential qualification for the obtainment of it, seems clear, and the words may be paraphrased thus, If you do love me more than these, feed my Sheep, if you do not, I will not have you feed them. Peter's Modesty would not permit him to say, that he did love Christ more than the Rest; but he did submissively appeal to our Saviors unerring Judgement, who knew the secret Recesses and Affections both of his, and of the Hearts of the Rest. Christ by Commanding him to feed his Sheep, did declare him the Greatest Lover. This Explication of the place is facile, natural, and openly lies upon the Surface of the words, and is agreeable to the Sense of the Fathers.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Chrysost. de Sacerd. Lib. 2. Christ discoursing Peter, the chief of the Apostles says, Peter, do you love me? He confessing that he did; Christ subjoins, If you love me, feed my Sheep. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If you love me preside over your Brethren. St. August. de Temp. Serm. 149. Dom. Jesus respondenti amorem, commendat agnos suos. Et ad Fratres in Eremo: Serm. 28. Quia amavit meruit & amari, meruit audire, Pasce Oves meas. And Lib. 4. de Consensu Evang. Postremo, suas Oves Petro se amanti, eumque amorem ter consitenti commendat. Ideo commisit Christus Petro ut pasceret gregem, quia charitatem ejus agnovit, Enarrat. Psal. 18. Ambrose.  
Considering then, that according to the Sense of the Scriptures and Fathers, Love was the occasion of his Advancement to this sublime Eminence; according to the proportion and measure of his Love, was the extension and latitude of his Power: And thus it is irrational to admit the Rest to be equal sharers with him in this Pastoral Commission, for the Authority of feeding, being the recompense of his Love, he loving more than the Rest, exceeded them in that Commission; it being most unreasonable to imagine, that any could equalise him herein, without loving Christ equally to him, which they did not, as has been already determined by our Saviors Umpirage: Peter then surmounting them all by his Ardent Love, had this glorious Prerogative above them, to be by Christ himself constituted his Supreme Pastor. And herein St. Ambrose affords his Symphony, Lib. 10. Cap. 14. in Lucam: Dixit ei Jesus, Pasce Agnos meos: Bene conscius sui non ad tempus assumptum, sed jamjudum Deo cognitum, Petrus testificatur affectum: quis est enim alius qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? & ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur; major enim omnibus Charitas. Here St. Ambrose clearly acknowledges, that the Reason of his Prelation before the Rest, was, because he loved more than they; and that he did so, is the Sense of other Fathers as well as his. Hence Chrysost. calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Raging, Ardent, Mad Lover of Christ. And in his Hom. 1. de Paenitentia, he says, That he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, More love for Christ than all the Disciples besides. Nazianzen calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A greater Lover of his Lord, than the other Apostles. St. Hierom on Matt. 16. Nimii ardoris, amorisque quam maximi fuit Petrus in Salvatorem. St. Austin Tract. 124. John. Sciebat Dominus non solùm quod diligeret verùm etiam quod plus illis illum deligeret. And in the same Tract, Quod Petrus plus aliis dilexit Christum possunt multa documenta proferri.  
This excessive love towards his Lord, made him generous, and forward in his Promises and Protestations to him; and likewise adventurous in exposing his life for him. When Christ was seized on by Judas' Company, he only drew and fought for him: And after his Resurrection he could not conceal the Ardour of his Affection, nor the Gallantry of his Spirit, he being the only Person (all the Rest continuing abroad) that upon the first Intelligence of Christ's appearance on the Shore, impatient of the dull progress of the becalmed Vessel, hastening to his Lord, threw himself into the Sea. And altho' St. John was more quicksighted, and saw Christ first; St. Peter was more ardent, and arrived to him first, As Nazianz. affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Mr. Cartwright knowing Peter's surpassing Love towards Christ to be very considerable, and that it would make a great inclination of the Balance to his advantage, had a mind to elude it, by reviving an old Cheat which was extant in St. Augustin's days. We may deny (says he) that the Comparison here is made between the Love of Peter, and the Love of the Rest; but between the Love he bore to Christ, above that he had to his Ship, Nets, and his present Friends: This St. Austin looks on as a cunning Interpretation, Vafre diligis me plus his, i. e. plusquam hi diligunt me; sed diligis me plus his, i. e. plusquam hos diligis; But de Sanctis Petro & Paulo, he discovers the Forgery herein, non simpliciter dixerat Dominus, diligis me; sed addiderat, plus his diligis me, id est, plus me diligis quam isti.  
The next thing that the Palate of your Fancy seems to disrelish, is my affirming Peter by virtue of these words Pasce Oves meas, to have received Authority over the whole World, and over the Apostles themselves: All that you allege in opposition thereto, is this, But Christ said, Pasce Oves meas, not tuas, and Pasce Oves, not pastors; likewise confirma Fratres is not confirma Filios or Subditos. By these ingenious and subtle distinctions, you fancy to have overthrown what I wrote on this matter; but to me those distinctions seem to be only whiffling and versatile. Can any Vafrous Proteus transmute himself into more varieties of shapes only to make an Evasion? But pray, now you have done shuffling, give me leave to cut, the Expression is proper enough, for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Timothy, which is translated to divide right, signifies properly to cut right. I do believe, and assert, that the words Oves meas, do impale and enfold all Christ's Sheep in general, as well the Apostles as other Christians, all were recommended and delivered over to Peter's care and prefecture; the words being delivered indefinitely, in an unlimited manner; there being no Exception, Restriction, or Distinction: And herein I proceed according to the Rule of St. Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That which is indefinite compre hands all: This was likewise St. Bernard's Sense, Lib. 2. de Conf. ad. Eugenium, Si me amas, Petre, Pasce Oves meas, inquit: quas, illius vel illius populos Civitatis, aut Regionis, aut certe Regni? Oves meas inquit: cui non planum non designasse aliquas, sed assignasse omnes? Nihil excipitur, ubi nihil distinguitur. Thus you see according to his Opinion, Peter's Power was not confined within the limited Tropics 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 Universe. This I shall likewise prove out of St. Chrysost. and Theophyl. for St. Bernard will be excepted against, as living in the time of Antichrists chief exaltation, and therefore not to be regarded, says Dr. Fulk; or as Dr. Whitaker has it, he lived in those times, quando Papatûs splendore, acies perstringebatur animorum.  
St. Chrysost. Hom. 87. in Johan says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ foretold St. Peter great things, and delivered the World into his Hands. This his Ecumenical Jurisdiction he acknowledges, Hom. 1. de Paenit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ delivered into his Hands the Government of the Ecumenical Church. And on the 16th of St. Matt. he confesses him to preside, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every where in the World. Hence he calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Master of the Universe. Theophyl. likewise in his Comments on Johan 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ delivers to Peter the Government of the Sheep of all the World. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fellow me, delivering into your Hands the whole World. I shall add no more Testimonies now on this Point, intending to prosecute it further in my Second Part.  
I am obliged now to take some small Cognisance of your several nice Distinctions, your first was, that Christ said, Oves meas not tuas. I wish you had explained what you meant by this Criticism, that I might have shaped a pertinent Reply, which otherwise it may be, I shall not. I find the Archbishop Spalleto to make a cunning Interpretation on Oves meas, i. e. says he, Israelitas, because Christ declared, he was not sent but to the lost Sheep of Israel; and because St. Paul calls Christ Minister Circumcisionis, by this Gloss he designed to rob Peter of the Prefecture of the Gentiles, limiting him to the Jews, which Error I shall confute in my Second Part. St. Austin in his Serm. 123. in Johan. says thus, Si me diligis, non te pascere cogita, sed Oves meas: Et sicut Oves meas, non sicut tuas: Gloriam meam in eyes quaere, non tuam: Lucra mea, non tua: Dominium meum, non tuum. Here St. Austin explains what he meant by his Distinction; what you designed by it to me is wrapped up in Clouds, unless you fancy that our Saviour delivering his Sheep into the Hands of Peter, lost his propriety in them: But I fancy Christ no more lost his Claim and Interest in his Sheep, when he recommended them to Peter's Government, than a King loses his Royalty and Jurisdiction in those Subjects, over whom he constitutes a Viceroy: For neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles set up for themselves: Neither did they lay any other Foundation but Christ, and their united endeavours were to make Men Christanoes, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Epiphanius calls them. You may then, now understand Peter's Jurisdiction to be derivative from, and subordinate to our Saviour, and tho' in respect to the other Apostles and Christians whatsoever, he was chief Pastor, yet in relation to Christ (who is the only Supreme Independent Pastor) he is but a Sheep; yet the Noblest, most Honourable, and Excellent of the Flock, as St. Chrysost. says, in Apost. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as such a Sheep he is governed and fed by Christ. This St. Austin Serm. 62. Johan. 2. affirms, Commendabat Christus Petro agnos suos pascendos, qui pascebat & Petrum. Yet it does not at all follow, but that Peter, after Christ's relinquishing this World, was the Pastor of all Christ's Sheep, but by Authority from him, and as dependant of him; and herein you may see St. Austin's Judgement in his Book de Pastoribus, Nam & ipsum Petrum, cui commendabat Oves suas, quasi alter alteri, unum secum facere volebat, ut sic ei Oves commendaret, ut sit ille Caput, ille figuram Corporis portaret, id est, Ecclesiae. And again, in the same Book, Non ibi dixit Dominus, Ego pascam Oves meas; non tu, sed Petre, amas me? Pasce Oves meas. Here Christ is said not to feed his Flock (that is visibly) but Peter.  
Your other Criticism is, that Christ said, Pasce Oves. not pastors; but the difficulty of this Distinction, may be removed with great facility, for 'tis very easy to explain how Pastors may be fed, even to the lowest Capacity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But that it may be more intelligible, I will make it out to you by this Simile. You who are a Minister of such a Parish, in relation to your Flock and Parishioners are a Pastor; and they are your Sheep, receiving from you Spiritual Food and Pasture: But you, on the other side (this Janus having a bifront aspect) in relation to your Bishop, are a Sheep, and he has Power to exercise his Pastoral Government over you when he sees occasion: And to rise to an higher Ela, a Bishop, Archbishop, or Primate are Pastors, in consideration of those Sheep which are in subjection to them; but being balanced with a Patriarch, they are Sheep themselves. Thus it was with the Apostles; they in reflection to the whole Christian World were Pastors, Governors and Princes, but in comparison with Peter, the Head of the Apostolic Senate, and Supreme Pastor immediately next to Christ, they were Sheep: And to this intent our Saviour seemed to have changed the words in his Commission to Peter, as St. Ambrose observes in his Lib. 10. Cap. 24. in Luc. Denique tertiò Dominus non jam diligis me, sed amas me interrogat? Et jam non agnos ut primò, quodam lacte pascendos: nec oviculas ut Secundò; sed Oves pascere jubetur, perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret. And the same Author, in another place says thus, Petro committi incipientes, proficientes, perfectos. Hence Euseb. Emissenus Serm. De Nat. St. Johan. says, Non solùm Pastorem; sed Pastorum Pastorem eum constituit. And Arnobius on Psal. 138. calls him a Bishop of Bishops, which is equipollent to a Pastor Pastorum: Ecce Apostolo paenitenti succurritur qui est Episcopus Episcoporum.  
The next thing I am to regard is, your Asterisk and Note on Confirma Fratres, that it was not said, Confirma Filios, or Servos, or Subditos, but Fratres. I have no design to endeavour to alter the least tittle of the Text, but shall liberally grant you your Observation: And now what will you infer out of it, that they were therefore equal, because they were called Fratres? This surely must be the design of your Criticism, but I deny the Consequence; for you will find our Saviour to call his Disciples Fratres, as Matt. 20. 10. Nuntiate Fratribus, ut eant in Galilaeam; and speaking to Mary Magdalen, he says, Vade ad Fratres meos, etc. I hope you will not conclude the Apostles equal with him upon this account. St. Paul in like manner calls the Corinthians Fratres in his Epistle to them. Et ego Fratres non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus. Hoc itaque dico Fratres: But notwithstanding this Appellation, he had Spiritual Jurisdiction over them, and exercised it too; as appears by delivering one of them over to Hell's Jailor. And in Cor. 4. he says, Quid vultis in virgâ veniam vobis an in Charitate? This Virga was a Symbol of Power. Oecomenius on the words Viri, Fratres, in the 2. Acts Apost. gives this account, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; They did not say Fratres, by way of Equality; as if by such a term they had equalised themselves to them, but to show how familiar they were with them. Now the reason why Christ spoke to Peter to strengthen his Brethren, was according to Theophyl. because he looked on him as their Prince, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Cyril accordingly on the same words, Postquam me negato ploraveris, corrobora Fratres, cum te Principem Apostolorum deputavero. St. Ambrose does clearly confess, that by virtue of these words spoken to him, Christ made him their Supreme Pastor, in Psa. 43. Ecclesiae praeponitur postquam tentatus a Diabolo est, ideoque ante significat Dominus quid sit illud quod postea eum elegit gregis Dominici Pastorem; nam huic dixit, confirma Fratres tuos.  
Having thus removed these your slender Objections with as much ease as the Wind puffed away the aged Sibyl's disordered Leaves. I shall now hasten to conclude what I have to say more on this Subject, and to show you how fair an Antagonist you have of me. If you can prove that the other Apostles were none of Christ's Sheep, I will exempt them from Peter's Prefecture. This seems to me an equitable proposal: Now if they were his Sheep they were under the denomination of Oves meas, recommended to Peter's Shepherdly Government. Now that which enforces me to believe that they were comprehended under those words and that Christ meant them when he said so, is, because he often calls them Sheep; I'll strike the Shepherd and the Sheep shall be scattered. My Sheep hear my Voice. Behold I send you as Sheep. And accordingly in the 10th of St. John, Christ says of himself, Ego sum Pastor bonus. Theophyl. on Mark 14. gives the reason why they are called Sheep, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He calls his Apostles Sheep, because they are harmless: Besides St. Chrysost. interprets Oves meas on Peter's Brethren, which were the Apostles, in his Hom. 87. on St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ says to Peter, If you love preside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over your Brethren. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He delivers into his Hands the Government of his Brethren. Theophyl. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He delivered into Peter's Hands the Prefecture of all the Faithful. So I hope you will not exclude the Apostles from that number. Besides this, you will find the unanimous consent of the Father's attesting Christ's whole Flock, which must necessarily enfold the other Apostles to be recommended to Peter. Thus St. Ambrose Serm. 47. Tanquam bonus Pastor tuendum gregem accepit. And in his Fifth Book de Fide, he acknowledges him to be the Wise Steward, whom Christ placed over his whole Family by virtue of Pasce Oves meas. Quisnam est fidelis servus & prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam, ut det illis in tempore cibum? beatus ille servus quem veniens Dominus ejus invenerit sic facientem; non vilis hic servus magnus aliquis, esse debet quis sit iste consideremus: est Potrus, ipsius Domini electus judicio qui tertiò meretur audire, Pasce Agniculos meos, Pasce Agnos meas, Pasce Oviculas meas.  
St. Chrysost, Acts 1. says, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Entrusted with Christ's Flock. Epiph. in his Ancorat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This is he who heard Christ himself say to him, feed my Lambs: This is he who was entrusted with the Flock. Hence St. Basil calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Shepherd next after Christ. St. Chrysost. in Inscript. Act. Apost. calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Head Pastor of the Apostles. But in his Second Book de Sacerd. he manifestly declares Peter by virtue of the Words Pasce Oves meas, spoken to him to be invested in Power and Authority, and to excel the rest of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
St. Austin Quaest. 73. Vet. & Novi Testam. confesses him to be constituted Head of the Apostles, to the end he might be Pastor of the Lords Flock, Ipsum constituit Caput eorum, ut Pastor esset Dominici gregis. Hence Arnobius on Psalm 138. affirms, That none of the Apostles, but Peter had the Title of Pastor from our Saviour. Nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit, solus enim Dominus Jesus Christus dicebat, Ego sum Pastor bonus: Hoc ergo nomen Sanctum, & ipsius nominis potestatem, post Resurrectionem Petro Paenitenti concessit. Hence you see that Peter only was honoured by Christ, with the glorious Title of Pastor; not but that the other Apostles were Shepherds, but because Peter was the Chief, not the Vnicus but Vniversalis, not the Solus but the Summus, the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This most August Honour was not undeservedly conferred on him, but for the constellation of his incomparable Endowments, for that rare triumvirate of Qualifications which adorned the Temple of his Breast. St. Austin gives an account of them, Bonitatis gratiam testatur Aeneas debilis claudus ab infantia: probaverunt ejus severitatem Ananias & Sapphira; de scientiae ejus perfectione quis ambigat, qui Christum Dominum vivi Dei filium esse, de Coelo sibi revelante Patre cognovit? Quia Bonitas, ac Disciplina, Scientiaque non deerat, pascendas illi Dominus suas commendavit Oviculas. Hom. 4 The happy Union of these rare Embellishments made him the most resplendent amongst the Apostles, the most Prefulgent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the holy Dozen, therefore culled out of that Illustrious Society by the discerning Eye of Christ, as the fittest Person amongst them to be his Vicar and Supreme Pastor; to whose Pastoral Care and Vigilancy he recommended the whole Flock of his Universal Church: And this was done as St. Hierom observes on Mark 16. VT SIT una FIDES SUB VNO PASTORE. Our Blessed Saviour having purchased to himself his Sheep at a rigorous rate, by the Spargiment and Effusion of his Sacred Blood, was pleased upon his departure out of this World to entrust the care of them to Peter, as to a Faithful and Vigilant Guardian; and not only to him, but to his Successors after him, as Chrysost. affirms in his Second Book de Sacerd. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For why did Christ shed his Blood? that he might acquire to himself those Sheep which he delivered into the Hands of Peter and his Successors after him.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Hail Peter Prince of the Apostles, Hail Peter Rock of the Church, Hail Peter Celestial Porter, Hail Peter Supreme Pastor of Christ's Flock. It is not in the power of any Person whatsoever to despoil thee of any of those glorious Prerogatives which the Blessed Jesus invested thee with. Neither can any Virulent Tongue, tho' bathed in the Decoction of Venom; or any malicious Pen, tho' dipped in the strongest Infusion of Gall, be now injurious to you, sitting aloft in the Starry Palace of Heaven, Crowned with unfading Diadems of Glory, enrobed with bright Vestments of pure refined Light, Embroidered with your Illustrious Titles. Free from the Stratagems and Petitions of that Satan who once requested to Winnow you; and safe from the bitings of your Spiteful Adversaries, who snarl at thy Lustrous Splendour, as Wolves bark at the Moon, when adorned with her clearest Refulgency she travels in Pomp through her Fields of Light. But I, in the mean time, most Blessed Saint, will pray to thee to pray for me, Sancte Petre, Ora pro nobis: And thus I conclude my First Book of your Supremacy, most humbly begging, that if I have wrote any thing worthy of your Approbation, you would be pleased to accept of it as flowing from a Heart devoted to your Honour, pardoning the imperfect Characters of a Pen vanquished by the Greatness of so Sublime a Subject.   
FINIS.