Imprimatur,

JO. BATTELY.
Oct. 14. 1686.

A SERMON PREACHED UPON St. Peter's Day. Printed at the Desire of Some that heard it, WITH SOME ENLARGEMENTS.

By a Divine of the Church of ENGLAND.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church-Yard, MDCLXXXVII.

A SERMON PREACHED UPON Saint PETER 's Day, &c.

MATTH. XVI. 18. beginning. ‘ And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.’

THE Text, as we call it, is part of the Gospel for this Day; and accor­ding to the Interpretation which some give of it, it is the whole Go­spel of Christ: These two Words, PETER and CHURCH being so comprehen­sive, that if they be well learnt, there needs no further pains to come acquainted with all the rest of the Christian Religion.

[Page 2] For in PETER, who they say is the Rock here spoken of, all the Bishops of Rome, in all succeding Ages, are included; who inherit the very same Prerogative which St. Peter had, of being the Foundation of the Church. Which CHURCH, say they, is nothing else, but that Body of Men and Women who are united unto the Roman Bishop as their Head: From whom all Ecclesiastical Power is derived unto all other Pastors of the Church. Over whom, and conse­quently over all Christians, he hath a Soveraign Authority, to declare the Rule of Faith, to deter­mine the Canonical Books of Scripture, and the Traditionary Word: In brief, To be as infallible a Guide in the way to Heaven, as Saint Peter was. So that if any Man would know infalli­bly, what the Christian Religion is, he need be at no more trouble, but only to enquire of that Church which adheres to him as the Foundation, and resign up himself to the belief of whatsoever it teaches him, because it cannot possibly teach him amiss.

These are wonderful things, and we are high­ly concerned to examine, whether there be ground enough in this Speech of our Saviour, for the Church of Rome to raise upon it so large, so high, so glorious a Structure to it self, as this is. Because, if it appear that our Lord did give, not only to Saint Peter, but to all the Roman Bishops, and to them alone, this Univer­sal Pastorship and Power, to Teach, to Rule and Govern all Christians, of whatsoever sort they [Page 3] be; we must without any Contradiction, obedi­ently submit unto it; and have not so much as this liberty left us, To enquire whether the Roman Bishops do not extend their Power too far, in com­manding us to do those things which are directly contrary to the Commands of Him from whom all Power comes: Because, tho we think we see clearly that they do, yet we must not believe our own eyes, but them who tell us they do not. On the contrary, if it can be demonstrated that our Saviour in these Words to St. Peter, did not confer any such power upon him, much less upon all that succeed in the Roman See, we shall discern how little reason we have to commit our selves to the Guidance of that Church which builds upon such a sandy Foundation: And that it is our certain duty to adhere to the Constitutions of this Church of England, whereof we are Members; which not only teaches, That no manner of Obedience and Subjection is due to any such Forreign Power; but commands us who are Ministers in it, To use the utmost of our Wit, Knowledg, and Learning, purely and sincerely, (without any Colour or Dissimulation) to teach, manifest, open and declare, four times every Year (at least) that all such Power is for just Causes taken away and abolished.

In obedience to which Injunction, which is the An. 1603. very first Canon of our Church, I shall in this Dis­course endeavour, according to the best of my Understanding, and most diligent Enquiry, to give you the Genuine and Sincere Meaning of those Words (which are the prime Foundation of that [Page 4] high Claim now mentioned) and that as they were expounded in the first and best Times of the Church; when the Doctors of it were not engaged in those unhappy Controversies, which now disturb, or rather distract the Christian World.

And if I prove, That neither the Apostles after they heard these Words from Christ, no not St. Peter himself, who is said to be most, nay only concerned in them; nor the Ancient Bishops that succeeded them, no not the Bishops of Rome them­selves, when they on purpose treat of these Words, did think of any such Monarchy (it may be truly called) as is now built upon them; you will con­clude, that this is a new Doctrine, and that the Asserters and Maintainers of it, not we who oppose it, deserve the Name of Innovators in Reli­gion.

And for the clearer Exposition of them, I think it will be necessary,

First, To observe the Occasion upon which they were spoken; and from thence proceed,

Secondly, To show in what sense they were anciently understood; And

Lastly, What Inferences and Deductions are necessarily to be made from their Interpretations.

PART I. The Occasion of the Words.

THE meaning of these Words of Christ will be better understood, when we have well weighed the occasion on which they were spoken: which was this. The Opinion and Discourse of the Country concerning our blessed Saviour; which was thus reported to him by his Disciples, when he askt them about it, vers. 14. Some say, that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets. That is, there were very various and uncertain Opinions concei­ved of him; for tho they all agreed in general, he was a great Man; nay, a Man of God (as they cal­led the Prophets) yet they were not resolved, much less setled in any particular determinate notion of him.

To try, therefore, the Proficiency of those who were constantly bred in his School, he asks what their Opinion was, vers. 15. But whom say ye, that I am? Unto which Simon Peter makes this reply, vers. 16. Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God. The Question, ye may observe, is propounded to them all, not to Peter alone. He doth not say, Peter, whom dost thou say, that I am? But he saith unto them, that is, to his Disciples before mentioned, Whom say ye, that I am? Unto the same Persons of whom he enquired, Whom do [Page 6] men say that I am? v. 13. He now saith, But whom say ye that I am? And yet the Answer to this Que­stion is not returned by them all, or by several of them, as before; but by one only, Simon Peter an­swered and said, &c. What should be the reason of this?

The plainest and most undoubted answer is, That there was no difference of Opinion among them, as there was among the common People; but they were all of one mind in this matter, and therefore no more offered to speak but one; because they had all, but one thing to say, That he was Christ, the Son of the Living God. To the first Question, one of them alone would not return an Answer, because they had not all met with the same Opi­nion, but some with one, some with another; and therefore every one related what he had heard the People say about him. But to this Question, they had but one Answer to make, being all agreed in one and the same Belief; and therefore, it was sufficient for one to speak the mind of every one, to whom the Question was put.

But still the Reason is demanded, why St. Peter rather than any of the rest, made this Answer? To which St. Chrysostom thinks it enough to reply, When men are moved by the Spirit to do or say a Thing, it is in vain to ask a Reason of it. Yet he, as well as others, have given us divers Rea­sons which have a Foundation in the Holy Scrip­tures.

[Page 7] I. First, Because he was more warm and forward than the rest; of a zealous and active Spirit, which made him ready in Speech, and all other Motions, as well as quick of Apprehension, and ardent in his Affection. Many of the Fathers S. Hierom. in loc. S. Cyril in Joh. 21. 15. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 34. have given this account of it, as well as St. Chrysostome, who mentions it often; and here particularly affirms it to be the reason, why he stept, or rather leaped forth (as his word is) and prevented the rest, in this Confession.

And if they had not told us this, the Story of the Gospel would have furnished us with ten or twelve Instances of his forwardness, most of which are collected by Matt. 14. 28. St. Hierom, I will name but two or three. The first of them, is mentioned in this very Chapter, v. 22. When our Lord acquain­ting his Disciples what things he should suffer, Peter, out of a certain heat, which was natural to him, and a vehement, but imprudent love to our Lord, (as St. Chrysostoms words are) takes upon him to chide our Lord, for having such a purpose, advising him to be more favourable to himself. A second instance is in the 14th Chapter, where we read of his forwardness to go unto our Savi­our upon the Sea, tho he had not Faith enough to support him there. A thrid, in his forwardness to draw his Sword on our Saviours defence, when the Soldiers laid hold on him in the Garden, 26. 51. These things show his temper to have been so warm and zealous, that we need no other Rea­son for his speaking first, the mind of them all.

[Page 8] II. But others add that he was the eldest of the Company, being a married man when he entred into our Saviours Service. His Brother Andrew indeed, was first acquainted with our Saviour, Joh. 1. 40, 41. But, when they were called to be his constant Attendants, (which was not till some time after) Peter is mentioned before him, as the Elder of the two, St. Matth. iv. 18. Mark i. 16. Epiphanius Haeresi l. 1. indeed thinks otherwise, ma­king Andrew the elder Brother; but it is unrea­sonable to follow his Opinion alone (especially when he alledges no Tradition for it) against the Sense of many other Ancient Writers, who (Baronius Ad An. 31. n. xxiii. confesses) lookt upon Peter as elder than him. Which St. Hierom gives as the Reason, why St. Peter was preferred before St. John, the beloved Disciple, to be the first in the Order of the Apostles; because he was the el­der. His words are very remarkable, and wor­thy to be read of all, in his first Book against Jovinian, where he sets forth the Prerogatives of St. John, as most dear to our Saviour, be­cause he was a Virgin, and so continued to the end. Unto which he brings in his Adversary objecting, That the Church was founded upon Peter, who was a married Man: Tho in ano­ther place (saith St. Hierom) the very same is said of all the Apostles, and they all received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the soli­dity of the Church was equally established on eve­ry one of them. Yet among the Twelve, one was therefore chosen, that an Head being constitu­ted, [Page 9] all occasion of Schism might be taken away. But why was not John, being a Virgin, chosen? This was yielded to his Age; for Peter was the Senior. Otherwise, he will have St. John to have had the Preheminence, as it there fol­lows: Peter an Apostle, and John an Apostle; a Married man, and a Batchelor: But Peter only an Apostle; John both an Apostle, and an Evangelist, and a Prophet.

III. To which may be added, That he was the first of them all called to be Christs constant follower, as appears from what was now obser­ved, That tho he was not the first that believed on Christ, yet he was the first that our Lord cal­led from his secular Employment, to wait upon him, and to be always with him; And therefore called by some of the Ancients, the first Fruits of the Apostles.

IV. For, lastly, upon such accounts as these, he was made the first Apostle; not in Power and Authority; for therein, as hath been said already, and will appear more anon, they were all alike; but in orderly Precedence, which is natural and necessary in all Societies. And be­ing the Foreman, who so fit as he, to speak for them all, as he did not only now, but upon other occasions, Matth. xix. 27, and Joh. vi. 67, 68, 69. Upon which account, St. Chrysostome fitly calls him, [...], the Mouth of the Apostles: Which he frequently repeats In Matth. xvii. 24. Act. i. 25. Galat. ii. 2., and alledges this, together with his heat and zeal, as the Reason of his speaking, rather than [Page 10] the rest. For all of them could not make an­swer to the Question our Saviour here askt, without Confusion; and they all having but one thing to say, therefore one spake for them all. And who fitter to be their Speaker, than he that was the Senior of all; the leading man of the Company; whose Age and forward Zeal, and early entertainment into our Saviours family, had given him the priority of place among the Apo­stles?

But observe then, That if he spake because he was the Mouth of the rest (as the An­cient Opinion was); then, as he spake the Sense of them all, so he spake in all their Names: And that which he said, was the voice of all the Apostles. For either he was not the Mouth of the Apostles; or his Confession was the Confession of the whole Body of the Apo­stles, who spake the same in him. None of the Ancients, that I can find, doubted of this. St. Hierom, particularly, hath this note upon these words, Petrus ex persona omnium Apostolorum, &c. Peter in the Person of all the Apostles confesseth, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And the famous saying of St. Austin, is now grown so familiar to all, that I need only Translate it, Peter answers, one for all. Thus St. Cyprian Epist. ad Cornel., and St. Ambrose L. vi. in S. Luc. c. 9., from whom this Sense is transmitted down to later times; for Dionysius Carthusianus follows it, whose words are these, in our language, Peter as the Principal, gives the an­swer for them all.

[Page 11] And there are two Reasons the Fathers give for this; the one is a moral Reason, the other a mystical. The Moral is, To avoid Confusi­on; it being unseemly and disorderly for all to speak at once; therefore he being first, spake the mind of them all. The Mystical is, To denote the Unity that should be among the Apostles (and consequently the Unity of the Church, and of all that believe) according to the Prayer of our Saviour, when he was about to leave the World, (Joh. xvii. 21.) That they all might be one, as He and the Father were one: That speaking the same thing, and perfectly agreeing in the Doctrine they preached, the World might believe that the Father had sent him. This was much in the thoughts of St. Cyprian (in more places than I can easily number) and other African Fathers, who followed after him.

But I do not find any of those Ancient Writers mention this as the reason of Peters speaking, and not any of the rest (which Bellarmine L. 1. de Pontif. Rom. C. xix. makes his peculiar Prerogative) Because he alone knew at this time, that Jesus was the Eternal Son of God. St. Hilary in the Latin Church, and Basil of Seleu­cia in the Greek, were the first and only Persons of any account, (who by the Rule of the Roman Church, ought not to be followed against the stream of ancient Interpreters) that had in their minds this conceit. For Euthymius, who follows them, is of no consideration for his Antiquity.

What Advantage, they that contend for it, can make of this notion, I do not see; (because, if [Page 12] Christ did now reveal this to St. Peter alone, it was that it might be known to them all) yet, I do not think fit to grant it; because it is apparently against common Reason, and against the History of the Gospel, and against the best and most an­cient Authority.

1. In reason we cannot think the Apostles to have been such dullards, (to use no harder word) as in two years time and more, when they had been in our Saviours School, heard his words, and seen his wonderful Works, not to have learnt the [...] (as St. Athanasius Orat. III. contra Aria­nos. calls this Confession) the peculiar and principal Article of our Christian Faith, that he was God Incarnate, the Word made Flesh. Especially, when they had been introduced into this belief by John the Baptist; who had told them as much, before they were ad­mitted Christs Disciples. Andrew, it is certain, was not ignorant of it, who thereupon sought his Bro­ther Simon, and told him, we have found the Messias, i. e. Christ, Joh. 1. 40, 41. For John the Baptist had reported, how he saw the Spirit descend on our Sa­viour, and had heard the voice from Heaven, and therefore bare record, saying, This is the Son of God, v. 34. Nay, he bare witness, that he was Gods only begotten; for he cryed, saying, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him, v. 15, 18. By this Testimony they were drawn to our Saviour, who at the very beginning manifested forth his Glory, (that is, his Divine Majesty) by such illustrious Miracles, That his Disciples believed [Page 13] on him, (Joh. 2. 11.) That is, did not doubt of the truth of what John had said; and which, as you shall see presently, the very Devils themselves o­penly acknowledged and confessed. Who then can believe after all this, that they were ignorant of the very first thing in our Religion? With other points we find them unacquainted; but to fancy them not to have known this, is to make them as insensible as so many stones; and in no other sense to have deserved the Name of Stones and Pillars, (whereby they are afterward called) but only, be­cause they were so hardned in stupidity, that nothing would enter into them, no more than our words will into the hardest Flint in the World. What wretched Christians do we make them, if after such means of Instruction, we suppose them to have learnt nothing of the very foundation of Christia­nity?

2. But besides this, it is directly against the ex­press Testmiony of the Holy Scriptures; which in­forms us, that several Persons had before this time, made as full a Confession of the Faith, as St. Peter himself. They, for instance, who were with our Saviour in the Ship, when it was tossed on the Sea by a contrary Wind, and when St. Peter's heart had failed him, as he walkt with our Saviour on the Water, came and worshipped him (after he had made the Sea calm) saying, Of a truth, thou art the Son of God, Matt. xiv. 33. Nay, more early than this, as soon as ever St. Peter was acquain­ted with our Saviour, Nathanael (who is thought not without some reason to be the Apostle Bartho­lomew) [Page 14] made as distinct, and clear a Confession as his, Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel, Joh. 1. 49. I shall not insist on the Confes­sion of Martha, Joh. xi. 27. because it was after­ward, towards the Conclusion of our Saviours life: The plain acknowledgment of the Mariners and Passengers in the Ship (who were the persons St. Hierom thinks, that came and worshipped him, and made the foremention'd Confession) is a sufficient proof, that this was not a secret, known to St. Peter alone by a special Revelation.

St. Chrysostom, indeed, is of Opinion, That there is more in these Words of St. Peter, than in theirs, or in Nathanael's: Who only confessed him to be the adopted Son of God, but St. Peter went further, and confessed him his Son by Nature. But the rea­son he gives is insufficient, which is only this: That our Lord here pronounces Peter blessed, which he doth not say to the rest. For there might be other Reasons for pronouncing him blessed: Particularly this, That the Shipmen perhaps made that Con­fession only in a great transport of Passion; but he upon a setled and deliberate Perswasion; and that notwithstanding the various opinions that were in the Country about him, which might have distracted the Apostles minds, if they had not been attentive Considerers of the Testimonies our Lord gave of his Divinity. Besides, he seems in effect, to have called Nathanael blessed, tho he does not use the word: For, because he believed upon such a small and single Testimony of his Di­vinity, as his seeing him under the Figtree, He [Page 15] tells him he would reward his Faith with stron­ger Confirmations of it, Joh. i. 50. Thou shalt see greater things than these. Which is a promise con­taining much of his Grace and Favour toward him; and is thus inlarged, v. 51. And he saith unto him, Verily I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see Hea­ven open, and the Angels of God ascending and de­scending upon the Son of Man: That is, more manifest tokens of his Divinity, upon which the Angels waited and attended; just as they did upon the Divine Majesty in the Old Testament, Gen. xxviii. 12. And if all this do not seem suffici­ent to evince the Truth, what think you of the Testimony which St. Peter bears to them all, that they did believe and know that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Joh. vi. 69. To which may be added, that our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself, solemnly gives Praise and Glory to God, for reveal­ing those things, which concerned his Kingdom (of which this was the first) unto them all, Matth. xi. 25, 26.

And lastly, As this Opinion is against Reason and Scripture, so it is most certainly against the Autho­rity of the Ancient Fathers. For as St. Hierom In Matth. xiv. 33. alledges the Confession of the Mariners against the Arians: So the Orthodox commonly used this as an Argument against them, That the very De­vils had more Faith than they; for they confessed what the Arians denied, That Jesus was the true and natural Son of God. So they interpret those words, Mark iii. 11. V. Atha­nasium, de In­carn. Verbi, p. 85.. Which Maldonate him­self acknowledges the Fathers are wont wonder­fully [Page 16] to amplifie against those Hereticks; which they could not have done, if they thought, less was meant by it, than by this Confession of St. Pe­ter's. Who if he were the only Person that at this time understood this secret, then the Quire of the Apostles (as Basil calls them, when he speaks of their Ignorance) had less knowledg of the Saviour of the World, than the Herd of unclean Spirits. Which we cannot affirm without the greatest re­proach to them; they having been so long under our Saviours Discipline, and seen his Power over those Spirits; nay, received Power themselves from him, as it there follows, to heal Sicknesses, and to cast out Devils, Mark iii. 15.

But I need not laboriously inlarge upon this Ar­gument. St. Ambrose saith L. vi. in Luc. cap. 9. expresly, they all knew, what St. Peter alone spake. And St. Chryso­stom himself is of the same mind, when he makes him here the Mouth of all; and elsewhere In Gal. ii. 2. saith, he was their Tongue, and answered for them all; which he could not have done, if he had not known they were all of his belief. And therefore we can learn nothing in this matter, from such Doctors as Bellarmine, but that they are resolved to affirm any thing, to maintain their unjust Pre­tences. The ambitious claim of the Bishop of Rome, must by all means be supported; else they would not prostitute their Consciences, and their Reputations too, in this manner, by asserting things which are so apparently untrue, that the smallest skill in the Holy Scripture, is sufficient to confute them.

[Page 17] But of all the accounts of this Confession of St. Peter, there is none so unaccountable, as that of Cardinal Baronius; who without the least Syllable in all Antiquity to countenance it, adventures to say, That now St. Peter De­fined, Decreed, and made a Rule of Faith for all the World: For he fancies our Blessed Saviour now to have held a Council with his Disciples; in which St. Peter Ad Annum 33. N. xvii. talem fert sen­tentium, ut erudiat atque decernat, ac fidei Canonem perpetuo per mansurum oonstituat. Decreed and Constituted the Canon of Faith, for ever to endure. So that there was no need, saith he, our Saviour should consult the rest of the Apostles (though the Text saith expresly he askt them all, Whom say ye that I am)? What their Opinion was; it being sufficient that Peter had spoken Acquid de fide sentien­dum esset, clavam fixis­se. Ibid.; and so struck the nail to the head; that he had setled what was to be thought of Faith. Which is such an astonishing Instance of the Power of Preju­dice, Passions of all sorts, and worldly Interest, to corrupt and pervert the wisest Minds, that it ought to be an admonition to us all, to em­ploy the strictest Care, to discharge all these, when we are seeking after Truth, that they may not frame our Opinion for us. For how could such a Thought as this, without a strange Bias upon his Mind, enter into any Mans head? Or if it did, how could it stay there? or how should he be perswaded to publish such an ab­surdity to the Christian World? Is it credible, that in the Company where the Lord Jesus, the Eternal Son of God was present, any per­son, though never so great, should take upon [Page 18] him to teach, nay to make an Article of Faith? St. Peter certainly was no Master in this As­sembly, but a Scholar only; not an Instructor, but a Learner of Religion at this time, and in this place. Much less was he a Supreme Lawgiver, and a Judg of Truth (of which as yet he had not much Knowledg, it appears by what follows in this Chapter, where we read he so opposed our Saviour in another great point of Faith, that he calls him Satan); but barely pronounced what he had been taught to believe by our Lord himself; and had heard, as I have shown from John the Baptist; and seen proved by such mighty Works, as none could do but God alone.

If I seem to have stood too long in explaining this Confession, let those who think so, consider, that it was to open the clearer passage to all the rest that follows; which will be the more plainly and easily understood. Particularly the next words of the Evangelist, who tells us, that upon this Confessi­on of St. Peter, our Lord answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood (that is, man) hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven, v. 17. In which words he pronounces them all happy men; this not being revealed peculiarly unto him, but unto the whole Company; who were all taught of God, by such means as I have named, as much as he. For if Peter were their Mouth, then as you have heard, his Confession was their common voice in answer to a question put to them all; and by the [Page 19] same reason, our Saviours reply to him, was the pronouncing a Blessing on them all; who in him had made this worthy Confession, and thereby de­monstrated their proficiency in his School. In one regard indeed St. Peter was more happy than the rest; that as he was the first in the Colledg of the Apostles, so he had the Honour, as you shall hear, to be the first employed in that glorious work unto which they were all chosen as much as he; and in which they so laboured, that they were partakers no less than himself in that Blessedness, which is elsewhere pronounced to that faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his houshold, &c. Matth. xxvi. 45, 46. Which words Lib. ii. de Concil. c. 17. Bellarmin hath the confidence to apply peculiarly to St. Peter and the Roman Bishop, but directly against the sense of the Ancient Fathers, whom he was bound by solemn Oath to follow, who (as a learned Man Iv. Launoy Epist. ad Rai­mundum For­mentinum pars 2. of the Roman Communion hath largely proved) understand hereby every faith­ful Pastor in the Church of Christ.

Who according to the way and method of the Divine Counsels, which is to give unto those that have, to bestow more on those who make a good use of what they have already received, immediate­ly hereupon opens to the Apostles his purpose of gathering a Church; and drawing more disciples to him besides themselves, who should perpetually keep and preserve this Confession; and withal de­clares, that he would use Peter as an eminent instrument in this great undertaking: [...] and I also, or moreover say unto thee; beside what [Page 20] I have said already, I tell thee further, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

His Speech is directed to Peter, but it is evident from what hath been said, that in him he com­prehends all the Apostles; as they were all com­prehended in his Confession; Who knew already, that he was Christ, the Son of the Living God; but did not understand his intention of gathering a Church by their means.

This Name of Peter we met withal before (Matth. x. 2.) being given him at his first coming to our Saviour, John i. 42. Where he told him, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone, or Peter: Concerning which Justin Mar­tyr Dialog. cum Tryh. p. 333, 334. See also Tertullian L. iv. adv. Marci­onem c. 13. hath this Excellent Observation, That it was to show our Saviour was the very same God, who in the beginning had given new Names to Abraham and Sarah, to Jacob and Joshua. And for the same reason he called other two Disciples by the name of Boanerges; to signify that he had the same Authority, by which names were anciently changed; and that he was their Lord and Sove­raign, of which the imposing a name on any per­son was a mark: So that the Words of our Savi­our in this place, are to be understood, as if he had said, Thou art he, to whom when thou first camest to me, I gave a new Name, and called Peter, a Stone, and truly my Church shall be built on a bottom as firm as any stone, or rock.

[Page 21] It was the custom of our Lord, when he was about to declare any Divine Truth, to lay hold on some sensible similitude, then near at hand, the better to represent it to the minds of those that heard him. As discoursing with the Wo­man of Samaria at the Well-side, he takes oc­casion to tell her of living water, that he had to bestow upon her: Such as should be in those that drank it, a well of water springing up into everlasting life, John IV. 10, 14. And at ano­ther time, feeding a Multitude miraculously with a few Barly Loaves and Fishes, he thence lays hold of the opportunity to discourse of the bread of life which came down from heaven: which he admonishes them to labour after, be­cause if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, John VI. 26, 27, 50, 51. In like man­ner here, from the Name he had given Peter, he takes the occasion of representing the sted­fastness of that Foundation, on which his Church should be built; saying, on this rock will I build my Church.

There was something in Peter, no doubt, which was the motive to the bestowing this Name upon him: and that was the forwardness of his Faith; which carried him to Christ, meerly upon the report which his Brother An­drew gave of him. Which was the reason, S. Gregory Nyssen thinks, that though Abraham's Name was not changed, till after long acquain­tance with God, and many Divine Apparitions to him; Peter's was changed at the very first [Page 22] sight of our Saviour: he at the same time hea­ring his Brother, and believing on the Lamb of God, was consummated by Faith, and being knit to the rock (viz. Christ) was made Peter [...]. Hom. XV. in Cantic. Canti­corum, p. 691.. For our Lord intended to imploy him (though not him alone) as an eminent instrument, to bring others to the Faith; and build them on the same Rock, that he himself was built, till they became a Church.

The word CHURCH signifies, the whole company of Believers, united unto Christ, as their Lord and Master: who are here compared to a House.

The building of this Church is nothing else, but the joyning these Persons with their Pastors, into Company and Society one with another; in such good order, as the Stones, which make an House, are laid in, upon their Foundation.

All the difficulty is about the Rock, or the Foundation, upon which this Society stands; and, by holding fast to which, it remains a Church. Which is the second thing I undertook to treat of; unto which I now proceed.

PART II. What is here meant by the Rock.

COncerning this, there are various expositi­ons, among the ancient Fathers; as is ma­nifest to every one that hath read their Writings: though in truth (as you shall see before I have done) they differ rather in words, than in sense; and quite overthrow all the pretensions of the Church of Rome from this place of Holy Scri­pture. I will name four.

I. It is confessed by all Protestants, that some of the ancient Fathers, by the Rock do un­derstand Peter. No Body, that I know of, di­sputes about this: but only about their mean­ing, when they say he was this Rock on which Christ said he would build his Church. Which undoubtedly is not such, as they of the Church of Rome would have it; because other Persons, far more in number, and of as eminent rank in the Christian Church, expound it of the Faith which S. Peter confessed. So that he was the Rock and the Foundation, only as he preached this Faith; which is the second interpretation, and shall be made appear to be the meaning of those, who call Peter the Foundation of the Church.

[Page 24] II. If numbers are to be followed, there are most I am sure for this sense of these words; that by the Rock we are to understand, that faith which S. Peter now confessed. It is mentioned by For­tunatus an African Bishop, in a Council at Car­thage De Bapti­zan [...]is Hare­ticis apud Cy­prian. p. 233. edit. Oxon., where he saith, the Lord hath built his Church, Supra petram, non super haeresin, up­on a Rock, not upon Heresie. In which words Rock being opposed to Heresie; without all doubt, he understood our Saviour to speak of a sound and solid Faith in him, when he said he would build his Church upon this Rock. Which is exactly the sense of Epiphanius also, who by the Gates of Hell understanding all sorts of He­resies, adds immediately [...]. Haeres. LXXIV. n. 14., but they cannot pre­vail against the Rock, that is, against the Truth. To whom I could add Sixteen other ancient Writers (and not put S. Austin into the number, who often follows this Exposition) four of which were Popes of Rome Leo I. Foe­lix M. Gre­gorius I. Adrian I. : and I do not reckon neither, Isidorus Hispalensis, venerable Bede, and a great many other excellent Writers, later than they, down to Alphonsus Tostatus, and lower: among whom are five or six Bishops of Rome Nicholas I. John VIII. Steph. VI. Innocent II. Hadrian IV. Urban III., who expresly say, The Rock that Christ here speaks of, is the Faith which Peter confessed. For the Church, saith the last named Writer, is built upon faith: which faith is called a rock; because it always remains firm and solid.

III. But there are others of no less name and credit, that understand Christ himself, by this Rock. Who then may be conceived to have [Page 25] pointed to his own person, when he spake these words; shewing by his voice and gesture, whom he meant by this Rock: Which as it is an ele­gant, so it is no unusual form of Speech; but made use of by our Lord himself, on another occasion (Joh. II. 19.) when he saith, destroy this Temple (intending the Temple of his Bo­dy) and in three days I will raise it up. And there are no small number of the antient Doctors who thus expound these words; particularly S. Austin in divers places of his Works, as he himself takes notice in his Review of them. Where he saith Retract. L. 1 [...]. Cap. 21. that in a certain place of his Book against the Epistle of Donatus, he made Peter the Rock on which the Church was foun­ded; but since that time, had very often said, it was Christ the Son of the living God. He leaves the Reader, indeed, to chuse which he pleases: but any one may see he inclined to the last; which he followed in those Books which he wrote after this of his Retractions. For which I must needs say there are no small reasons, that are worthy to be mentioned.

First, this very Apostle (whose name is Peter, or Stone) calls Christ a living stone, unto whom ye coming (saith he to his flock) as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, &c. 1 Pet. II. 4, 5. Who can read these words without prejudice, and not think that S. Peter lookt upon Christ as that Rock, on whom every one must be built, who will be a part of the spiritual House; that is, of the Church? And therefore he adds, [Page 26] that Christ is that chief Corner Stone, elect and pretious, whom the Prophet Isaiah foretold, God would lay in Sion. (v. 6.) And Christ alone: for if he had had any conceit, that he was a joynt, secondary foundation of this building, it would have been very seasonable, or rather necessary, to have bidden his flock come to him, as that chief Corner Stone, which God of old predicted he would lay in Sion, as the foundation of his Church, together with Christ.

For so Bellarmin † is bold to expound that Praefat. ad Libros de summo Pontif. Prophecy of Isaiah; indeavouring at large to prove that every particular there mentioned, belongs to Peter, and his Successors in the See of Rome: who, he saith, are that tried Stone, that pretious, nay that corner Stone, that sure foundation, in fundamento fundatus (as they translate it) that stone laid in the foundation, which we read of Isaiah XXVIII. 16. Directly against the words of S. Peter himself, who applys all this to Christ alone; and indeavours to fasten his flock unto him, as the only sure Rock of their Redemption and Salvation.

This is a Doctrine frequent in the mouth of this very Apostle (whom against his own mind, they will needs make the Foundation of the Church) and which he had read in other places of the antient Prophets. For, long be­fore the writing of this Epistle, he tells the Council of Jerusalem, that Jesus was the stone which was set at nought by such Builders as they, but become the head of the Corner: Act. [Page 27] IV. 11. The great Men, that is, of the Jewish Church would not build on this Foundation, by joyning themselves unto him, as the rest of the Stones in a House, are to that of the Corner: and so they excluded themselves from his Body, and from Salvation; for there is no Salvation, saith he, in any other.

Secondly, Another great Apostle also tells us, that Christ is the Rock, 1 Corinth. X. 4. Who poured out his Spirit, after his Death, upon the Church; as the Rock in the Wilderness, after it was smitten, did Water for the Is­raelites.

Thirdly, And more than that, he tells us in that Epistle III. 11. Other foundation can no Man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. How is it possible to have a better interpreter of Christs words to Peter, than this which is here given us, by the great Apostle of us Gentiles. There are sundry Elo­giums indeed which the antient Fathers have be­stowed on S. Peter, in their writings; of which they of the Church of Rome are wont to boast: and we grant them all; nay, have often told them, that if it will do them any service, we will furnish them with as many more titles of Honour, out of the Fathers, as they have col­lected. But when we have done; we will pre­sent them with as many, and great, and transcen­dent, yea the very same, titles bestowed upon S. Paul: Who here tells us in plain words whom we are to understand by the Foundation of the Church, and consequently by the Rock, on which [Page 28] it is built. And indeed our Saviour doth not here say to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church; but upon this Rock: as if he spoke of something else; either himself, or that Faith concerning him, which Peter had confessed. Tu Petrus, Ego Petra, thou art Peter, and I am the Rock, on whom thou art built thy self, and must help to build others. If Peter himself was the Rock, then how is he built upon the Rock? He would be a Rock and a Foundation to himself: For there is no menti­on of more Rocks than one; which if it be Christ, then Peter and all must be built on him.

Hear how handsomely S. Austin Serm. 13. De verbis Domini Cap. 1, 2. expounds these words, Thou therefore art Peter, and upon this Rock, which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast known, saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, I will build my Church. Super me aedificabo te, non me super te. I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee. For they that would build upon men, said, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas, that is Peter: and others who would not be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, I am of Christ. Now S. Paul seeing them make choice of him, and contemn Christ, asks them, Is Christ divided? Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? No, neither in Paul 's, nor in Peter 's, but in the name of Christ; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

[Page 29] The like we meet withal in another place Tract. CXXIV. in evang. Johan­nis.. The Church is founded upon the Rock, whence Pe­ter received his Name. For the Rock is not de­nominated from Peter, but Peter from the Rock, Non enim à Petro Petra, sed Petrus à Petra: direct­ly contrary to Card. Baroni­us, who confi­dently says, non Petrus à Petra, sed ipse Petra; not Peter from that Rock, but he is the Rock. Ad An. 31. n. 24. as Christ hath not his name from Christian, but a Christian from Christ: for therefore the Lord said, Ʋpon this Rock I will build my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ the Son of the liv­ing God. Ʋpon this Rock therefore, saith he, which thou hast confessed, will I build my Church. FOR THE ROCK WAS CHRIST: upon which foundation, even Peter himself is built. For other foundation can no Man lay, than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.

I will not trouble you with any more Authori­ties, such as that of Venerable Bede In Cap. XXI. Johan., who hath transcribed these last words of S. Austin into his own Book: because I have a fourth exposition to add, which will help to clear the rest, especially the first.

IV. There are those, who having what I have now said in their mind, expound these words of all the Apostles and their Successors; that is, of all Christian Bishops: who laid this foundation stone, and continued to build upon it after it was laid. Thus S. Cyprian Ad Lapsos Epist. XXXIII. Edit. Oxon. most expresly: Our Lord whose precepts we ought to reverence and observe, ordering the honour of the Bishop, and the rule of his Church, saith in the Gospel unto Peter, I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, &c. From hence, through the course of times and successions, runs down the Ordination of Bishops, and the rule of the Church: [Page 30] THAT THE CHƲRCH MAY BE CONSTITƲTED ƲPON BISHOPS; and every affair of the Church be governed, by those Overseers. The very same is affirmed by S. Austin who in several places, looks upon the whole or­der of Bishops as comprehended in S. Peter: particularly in an Epistle to three Epist. CLXV. vide Launoii Epist. Par. V. ad Carolum Ma­gisirum p. 47. &c. & ad Gu­liel [...]. Voellum, p. 12. &c. great persons; where he saith, Christ spake these words to him, sustaining the figure of the whole Church. It will not be fit to mention all the rest of the antient Writers who thus extend the sense of this place: I shall only note that Paschasius Radbertus, the founder of Transubstantiation, was of this mind. For thus he writes L. IV. in Matt. v. 26. p. 18., The Church of God is not built upon Pe­ter alone; but upon all the Apostles, and the Suc­cessors of the Apostles.

Unto these four Expositions, I might add a fifth, there being those who have understood every Christian Man and Woman, by this Rock; they being the stones and materials, as I may call them, of which the Church consists. But I will pass this by, though it have more great names to sup­port it, besides Origen: because I have said enough already to expose the foul dealing, and unworthy reasonings and conclusions of greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome; which I shall represent in these following Considerations.

PART III. Reflections upon what hath been said concerning these Interpretations.

I.

IF these things be certainly true, as I assure you they are, and themselves cannot deny, that there are these several interpretations of this Scripture, among the ancient Doctors; then there can be no excuse made for their partiality, who receive, and adhere only to one of these in­terpretations, as the Catholick Exposition, and lay aside all the rest even those which are far more Catholick. Thus doth Bellarmine L. 1. de Pontif. Rom. C. X.; who finding fault with Erasmus for contradicting their Exposition of the Church being founded upon Peter, saith that all the Fathers teach it. And thus doth Cardinal Baronius Ad An. 33. n. XXVII. (to name no more) who is not ashamed to say, that it is an interpretation received and approved by the consent of the whole Catholick Church.

What truth can you expect from such Men, or who can think it safe to give up himself to the conduct of such Guides; who thus notori­ously [Page 32] falsifie in a matter so evident, that for one antient Father or Ecclesiastical Writer, that by the Rock understands Peter himself, there are two, nay very near three, that interpret it, of the Faith which S. Peter confessed? For to all those, which a very learned and ingenuous Doctor of the Roman Church hath collected, (which are XLIV. in number V. Jo. Launoii Epist. P. V. ad Guil. Voel­lum, p. 18. &c.) others may be added, besides Fortunatus and Epiphanius before menti­oned. For example, Euagrius seems to have had this in his thoughts, who speaking of Anastasi­us Bishop of Antioch (where S. Peter sat before he was at Rome), to whom such fierce assaults were given, as if they thought in his overthrow, to subvert the Church it self, saith, he manful­ly withstood them all; [...]. L. IV. C. 40. for he stood firm upon the impregnable Rock of Faith.

If the sense of the Antients be to be reveren­ced at all, why not one sense as well as another? And why not that most of all, which hath the most to assert it? With what conscience do they fix upon one, and throw away, nay detest all the other, which are of more credit? Is it not highly unjust to make Peter this Rock here spoken of, rather than Christ our Lord, when there are so many reasons, as well as great Authority, for the last, more than for the o­ther? And yet they not only do this, but most immodestly say, all the Fathers are of their mind.

[Page 33] And which is worse, they make this an Arti­cle of the Faith, That the Church is founded upon S. Peter, nay the prime Article of all; un­to which it is evident the Church hath never a­greed, but manifestly contradicted it.

Upon this Bellarmine grounds the Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome; because Peter is the Rock, and the Foundation of the Church, as the Su­preme Governor of it; and therefore every Succes­sor of his, is in like manner, the Rock and Foun­dation of the Church. And thus he saith all the Fathers have expounded it L. IV. de Pontif. Rom. C. III.. And hence pro­ceeds so far, as to say, this is the summ of Chri­stian affairs Praefat. in illos Libros. : the whole frame of the visi­ble Church depending so much upon the Ro­man Bishop, that if he be taken away, the Church falleth.

Upon this Foundation also they have raised to him such an Authority, they make him, by Christs Institution, the Monarch of the Church Baron. ad An. 33. n XX.: and consequently above the whole Church; above General Councils; the Supreme Judge of Controversies, who can be judged by none, and I know not how many other extrava­gancies.

And to make all this indubitable, some have had the confidence, against the sense of all An­tiquity, to translate these words thus, Jo. Hart. confer. with Doctor Rey­nolds, p. 22. Thou art Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my Church. Which Translation, though the Rhe­mists have not put in the Text of their English Testament, (as a great Doctor among them would [Page 34] have had them done) yet they maintain in their Annotations that they who translate out of He­brew, Syriack or Greek, ought to have so tran­slated it: not observing that they herein condemn their own authentick Latin, which hath done otherwise.

But when Men are bent to serve a Cause, right or wrong, they cannot but thus contradict them­selves, as well as the ancient Fathers. Whose authority they pretend to reverence; but when it is against them, make so bold with it, as not only to reject, but to indeavour utterly to destroy it. Thus they have ordered these words to be expunged out of a Sermon of S. Chrysostom's Serm. in Pen­tecost. in his Works printed at Basil., though I have shown they are most Catholick, the Church is not built upon the man, but upon his Faith.

After all which confidence it is no wonder if they proceed to such a height of boldness, as to call those Innovators, and Hereticks; nay shame­less Innovators, and impudent Hereticks Baronius ad An. 33. n. XXI. Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. L. 1. C. X.; who interpret this place not of Peter, but of Christ, or the Faith which Peter confessed. I will not imitate their ill Language; though it might most justly be returned upon them: For their opinion, who make Faith the Rock (as the Lutherans commonly do) is so far from Novel­ty, that it hath the most Antiquity, among which seven or eight Popes of Rome, on its side: and they who say Christ is the Rock (as the followers of Mr. Calvin commonly do) are back'd also with the Authority of ancient Such as S. Hierom, S. Austin, Theodoret, &c. Do­ctors, [Page 35] among whom are some Popes; parti­cularly Innocent the Third, who mentioning these words, saith, Christ himself is both the Founder, and the Foundation of the Church Serm. 2. de Consecr. Pont..

How then can they be said to have lost their modesty, who say nothing; but what the grea­test Men in the Church of Christ have said before them? And what Character do they de­serve, who, notwithstanding this unquestiona­ble evidence against it, not only affirm that Pe­ter is meant by the Rock; but that this is the pro­per, and, as one may say, the immediate, and li­teral sense Bellarm. L. 1. C. X. de R. Pont. of the words: and hath the consent of the whole Church, both of the Greek and of the Latin Fathers?

But that which aggravates all this guilt is still behind; that they thus expound the place, di­rectly against the Decree of the Council of Trent, and that Profession of Faith which every Priest solemnly makes; wherein he promises, he will never understand and interpret the Scri­ptures, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Bulla Pii IV. super forma juramenti pro­fessionis fidei.. Now it's as clear, as that there are such Fathers, that they most unanimously con­sent in that interpretation which these Men con­tradict; and that there are but few, in compari­son, who agree in that which they assert for the proper sense of the place.

[Page 36] Think seriously of such things as these, and you will not be moved from your stedfastness, by the confidence of those, who bear the World in hand; that they alone hold the ancient Apo­stolick Catholick Faith, according to the exposi­tion of the ancient Doctors. It is meer pre­tence; for in their Exposition of our Saviour's Words, they chuse that which is least Catho­lick; and more than that, they make that which is least Catholick, to be a Principal point of the Catholick Faith.

If this be not the highest degree of partiality; it is because they themselves exceed it in what follows.

II.

They cannot but know, that those very Per­sons in the ancient Church, who by the Rock understand Peter, meant no more, than they do, who understand thereby Christ himself, or Faith in him. For these are not really three different senses; but, in effect, no more than one: The ancient Doctors using only a diversity of speech, not of opinion, as S. Austin was wont to say. Which appears most manifestly in this, that the very same Person uses these words promiscuously, sometimes Peter, sometimes his Faith, sometimes Christ. S. Hilary Can. XVI. in Matth. for in­stance, is often quoted for this saying, (spea­king of S. Peter) O happy Foundation of the Church! But the same Hilary says in another [Page 37] place, This Faith is the Foundation of the Church L. VI. de Trinitate.; and in another, This is the one hap­py Rock of Faith, confessed by Peter 's Mouth, Thou art the son of the living God L. II. de Trin.. These sayings ought, in Justice, to be taken notice of, as much as the first: but then Peter, in his opinion, was no such Foundation as they would have; unless the good Father be supposed to con­tradict himself. In like manner S. Chrysostom, who upon these words ON THIS ROCK, makes the sense to be (as he doth in many other places) upon the Faith which he confes­sed; upon the very next Verse, expounds the words thus, Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my Church.

Shall we think that so great a Man did, in one and the same breath, as I may say, forget and contradict himself? and not rather expound the later words by the former; that by upon Peter he still meant upon the Faith that Peter then con­fessed, and afterward preached? Pope Leo the First also, who in his Epistle to Leo Augustus, says Peter is the Rock; in four other places, in­terprets it of his Faith. S. Cyprian likewise, I have shown, expounds it of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, as well as of S. Peter. And S. Austin expounds it all the four ways be­fore-mentioned, of Peter, of Christ, of Faith, and of all the Apostles.

What shall we say then? Did not these great Doctors know their own mind? Were they wa­vering and unsetled in their Opinions; not know­ing [Page 38] what to determine? They were not such Children in understanding: but by these various forms of Speech have plainly told us, That when they say Peter is the Rock, they did not mean his Person, much less him only; but his Doctrine which he preached, which was also preached as much by others. Just as when we bid one read Tully or Virgil; we mean their Works which they have left us.

The reason of all which is nothing else but this; that the Church is built upon Christ, by Faith in him, which was professed and preached by Peter, and by the rest of the Apostles. Christ is in proper speaking, the Rock and the Foundati­on, upon which the whole Church relies. Pe­ter was an eminent Minister of his, and so were the other Apostles, to lay this Foundation: that is, to Preach, and declare him to the World, and perswade Men to believe on him; upon whom they themselves were built, as their Foundation. They first believed on him: and then were co-workers with him, to bring others to the Faith: and lastly, after they were dead, that Faith which they confessed and taught, still remained to be prea­ched, by their Successors, in all Ages, as the Doctrine on which we must stand, and to which we must hold, if we intend to be owned by Christ, as Members of his Church.

So all these Expositions agree very well; and do not cross one another: for when the Fathers use sometimes one word, sometimes another, they still mean the same thing. If they say, S. Pe­ter [Page 39] is the Rock, they mean only as a Minister that laid the Foundation-stone; and then so was S. Paul too, who calls himself, a chief Master-builder. If they say, Faith is the Rock, they mean a belief of this Doctrine that Jesus is the Son of the living God: which is the first Princi­ple of the Christian Religion. And if they say the faithful are the Rock (for so some of them have spoken) they mean that being built upon this Faith in Christ, they also profess, maintain, and support it. For, in effect, as I said, all these Interpretations meet in one: Christ being the Principal cause of all; Peter a Ministerial or In­strumental cause, by preaching Christ, while he lived, and perswading Men to joyn them­selves to him, and become a Church: and their belief of that which he, and the rest of the A­postles preached concerning Christ Jesus, was both then and after they were dead, the means whereby they were joyned to Christ. He and the Doctrine concerning him, was the Founda­tion, upon which all were built; by the Mini­stry of Peter and his fellow Apostles, who squared and fastened Men unto this living Stone: upon whom being setled by Faith in him, they became themselves living Stones, (as S. Peter speaks in the place before-mentioned) and were built up a Spiritual House, or Temple, an Holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, accepta­ble to God by Jesus Christ.

I will conclude this with an excellent saying of S. Chrysostom [...], &c.; who speaking of S. Paul, and [Page 40] what he had preach'd and done, says, When I mention Paul, it is as if I had said, Christ him­self. For Christ moved and inspired that bles­sed Soul; Christ spake by him, and his Voice was the Voice of Christ. Which I may fitly apply to the present matter, and say as truly of S. Peter; when he is named, Christ is named and nothing else is meant, but that upon him, that is upon Christ should by him, or speaking in him, the Church should be built. Thus, it is certain, Ter­tullian understood these words; which he thus in­terprets: the Church is built on him, that is by him In ipso Ec­clesia ex­structa est; id est per ip­sum. L. de pu­dicitia. C. XXI.. But not on him (that is by him) alone.

III.

For that is a farther piece of injustice to make these words spoken only to Peter: who I have shown was the mouth of the Apostles in the confession he made, and spake the sense of them all; and therefore, in all reason, this reply of our Saviour's is to be thought intended to them all; who were as much Rocks or foundations of the Church, as he. For did not our Lord propound the question to them all, in those words, whom do you say that I am? v. 15. And if he askt them the question, did he not expect their Answer? Where then shall we find that Answer, unless the Foreman delivered in the sense of the whole Body: and in the name of the rest of his Brethren made this declaration, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God? [Page 41] Which is affirmed, I have told you, by S. Au­stin and others, who say, Peter answers, one for all. Now if they all made this confession, then they were all concerned in our Saviours reply: who tells him, and in him tells them, that upon this Rock, that is himself which they confessed, he would build his Church by their Ministry; that is, by their constant preach­ing, what they had now confessed. And thus Venerable Bede our Countryman, understood this matter, in his Homily upon S. Peter; where he hath these very words; Nam sicut in­terrogatis generaliter omnibus, &c. For as when all were askt in general, who he was, Peter answered, one for all: So what our Lord an­swered to Peter, in Petro omnibus respondit, in Peter he answered to all the Apostles.

Thus even common reason taught Men to ex­pound words, when it was not swayed by preju­dice, interest, or any private affection. Which when we suffer to intermeddle, they prevent our judgment, and make strange glosses upon Gods word; casting a mist before our eyes, when the light of divine truth clearly shines into them. An instance of which we have in the Rhemists Annotations on these words, who could not but see, that the Fathers do some time say (if they could have spoke out, they would have siad, do very often, or rather most commonly say) the Church is bult on Peter 's Faith: But immediate­ly, as if darkness had come on a sudden upon them, they add, the Fathers meant not, that it should [Page 42] be built upon Faith, either separate from the Man, or in any other Man (as we, they say, unlearn­edly take them) but upon Faith, as in him, who here confessed that Faith. Which is as much as to say, the Church is built upon Peter's Faith alone; and not upon the same Faith, in any other Apostle. If this be Christian learning, it is very new: never thought of till of late; as will more fully appear in the following Conside­rations.

IV.

If we should grant that thèse words of Christ were spoken only to him; yet it is very un­just to understand them, exclusively of all the rest. For we may as well argue, that Christ intended S. Peter only should draw Men to him by preach­ing the Gospel (and so the rest of the Apostles have nothing to do) because he said to him alone, and not to James and John, who were his Part­ners, Simon fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men, Luke V. 10. as that he intended him alone to be the Rock, because he said only to him, Thou art Peter, &c. without any mention of the rest of the Apostles. Who ought not to be thought excluded, unless there had been some such word of restriction, as limited the sense to S. Peter only, and barred their claim to a joynt share in this grant: for the Church may be built on him, and on them too; he may be the Rock, and they also in the same sense that it is meant of him. And [Page 43] this appears to be true, from a great many things, that may be fit here to be observed.

1. First, the Apostles never thought themselves to be excluded; but by their behaviour declared they took themselves to be equal to him. Which Alphonsus Tostatus In Matth. XVIII. qu. VII. and in Matth. XX. qu. 83. (no longer ago than in the Fifteenth Century) asserts most earnestly, and, with great concern, alledges many undeniable ar­guments to prove, they did not understand any supremacy to have been given to Peter by these words. For after this, saith he, they contended for superiority, disputing who should be the greatest. Matth. XVIII. 1. Mark IX. 33. And again the two Sons of Zebedee (who always seemed to be equal with him in our Saviour's favour) have their desire of preference promoted by their Mo­ther, Matth. XX. 10. &c. Nay, this dispute was renewed at his last Supper (as he understands Luke XXII. 24, 25.) concerning which his words are remarkable. Every Apostle, saith he, doubted which of them should be the greater, and that doubt remained until the day of Christ's death: for in the last Supper of Christ, they began to inquire among themselves, which of them should seem the greater: and yet they would not have made this dispute publickly, if they had thought Peter, by the collating of the Keys, to have been preferred above them.

Thus far then they thought themselves equal, when they could not resolve which should be the greater.

2. And after our Lords Resurrection, and the [Page 44] coming of the Holy Ghost, when they cannot be supposed ignorant of any thing concerning his Kingdom, they still took themselves, as much concerned in these words as Peter. For not only S. Paul, but S. John, a Man exceed­ingly beloved of our Saviour, and his bosome Dis­ciple, thought all the Apostles to be the Founda­tion, on which the Church is built. Read at your leisure Ephes. II. 20. and Revel. XXI. 14. where you will find, the Wall of the New Jerusalem, that is the Christian Church, had twelve Founda­tions, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb: Not one Foundation; and on that the name of Peter; but twelve Foundations bearing the name of the twelve Apostles. Peter was unum, sed non unicum fundamentum, one Founda­tion, but not the only one. He was one of the next stones, which lay immediately upon the Rock Christ, and so may be called a Foundation: but so was S. John also, another of those stones which immediately rely upon Christ: and so were all the rest of the Apostles: None of which were built upon S. Peter, nor he on them; but all on Christ : Whom S. Austin In Psalm. LXXXVII. calls fundamentum fundamentorum, the Foundation of the Foundati­ons; that is of the very Apostles and Prophets; upon whom the Church is said to be built, because by their Ministry it was erected. In this sense Peter was a Rock; and so were all the rest of the Apostles as much as he: equal in power; alike intrusted with this great work, of raising a Church upon him the living Stone.

[Page 45] 3. Whence it is, that St. Paul giving an ac­count of the several Orders and Ranks of Men, which God hath placed in his Church, makes the highest Power in it, to be that which belongs un­to them all: For he saith, God hath set these in the Church, first Apostles, &c. 1. Cor. 12. 28. He doth not say, first Peter (as he should have done, if by these words, Thou art Peter, &c. he was set higher than the rest) but the Apostles in general; who were all the prime Ministers of Christ, of equal Dignity among themselves, without any one set over them in Superiority above the rest.

4. Which appears farther, from the Promise of bestowing the Keys upon him (which here imme­diately follows, Vers. 19. and is acknowledged on all sides, to be the highest Power conferred upon him) which is promised to all the Apostles in the very next Chapter, Matth. 18. 18. in the very same words, without any alteration, but only a change of the singular into the plural. Here it is said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, &c. there, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, &c. What reason then to fancy any difference between them? Which the ancient Christians did not, but look'd upon them all as having a joynt share in this Power: Which is so evident, that a Learned Man Joh. La­noi [...] Epist. ad Hadrianum Vallantium, p. 27, &c. Pa. 2. in the Roman Communion, hath shown at large, even by the Confession of Popes them­selves, that in Peter Christ gave the Keys, or ra­ther promised them, to the whole Church.

5 And the truth is, Nothing was here given to him by these words of Christ [Thou art Peter] [Page 46] with respect to the Apostles, but with respect to the Church only; which was raised by the joynt Labour and Pains of the whole Number. To whom another being afterwards added, he labour­ed more abundantly than they all, 1 Cor. 15. 10.

6. And was so far from thinking he had any Superiour (though he was chosen last of all, and look'd upon himself as a kind of Abortive, 1 Cor. 15. 8.) that he doubted not to say, He was not a whit (in nothing) behind the very chiefest of the Apostles; 2 Cor. 11. 5. & 12. 11. The words are very significant in the Greek [...], implying there were more very eminent, or super-excellent Apostles than one; called in other places Pillars, Gal. 2. 9. and Chiefs [...]., ib. vers. 2, 6. Peter no doubt was one of these, but there were others as eminent: and neither he nor they had a Pre­heminence of Power and Authority among them, there being nothing wanting in St. Paul, to make him equal to the most Eminent Apostles.

7. Particularly to St. Peter, with whom he contended, openly opposing and reprehending his Error, (Gal. 2. 11.) which he durst not have done, if he had known any Superiority, in Power and Authority, to have been in St. Peter. Nay, here had been a fit occasion for St. Peter to have asserted his Authority (if he had known any to have been in him, which was not in St. Paul) and not have suffered himself to be thus cor­rected by him for his Error. Of which we have not one word; nor did he, tho our Lord chose him first, and built his Church upon him, challenge to him­self [Page 47] any thing insolently, or arrogantly; so as to say, he had the Primacy, and therefore ought rather to be obeyed by those who were novel and later Persons. They are the words of St. Cyprian Epist. lxxi. edit. Ri­gal. whose Notes there a. f. are worth perusing., who plain­ly hereby declares his sense to have been, that these words of our Lord to St. Peter, gave him no such Primacy, as set him above Correction; that is, no Supremacy, or Dominion; and that it had been an insolent and arrogant thing, if he had assumed to himself any such Primacy.

8. For the Fathers, it must be next observed, never understood these words exclusively; but call all the Apostles by the very same names of Ho­nour and Dignity that they do Peter; and other Bishops afterwards by the same Names that they do the Bishop of Rome. For Example, I find one called Father of Fathers, another Bishop of Bishops; nay, all of them called Vicarios Christi, the Vicars of Christ, whose place they here sup­plied. Which Eminent Title the Popes of Rome heretofore, were so far from appropriating to themselves, that, as their common Title was Vi­cars of St. Peter, not Vicars of Christ, to this last they themselves have honoured other Bishops withal, as whole Councils have also done; who exhort the People to honour the Governours and Pastors of Churches, as Fathers, and Christ's Vi­cars V. Joh. Lanoii par. 3. Epistol. ad Mi­chaelem Ma­rollium, p. 21, &c. & n. 36.. But that perhaps, which will be thought most to the purpose, is this: That as St. Chryso­stome Tom. v. p, 992. & 995. Edit. Savil. in his Sermon upon those blessed pair, as he calls them, St. Peter, and St. Paul, gives them alike Titles, and says, God trusted them with the [Page 48] Souls of the whole World; so, speaking of all the Twelve Apostles, he calls them expresly in the singular Number, the Rock, or Foundation of the Church. Thus, I show'd before, St. Cy­prian also discourses, when he saith from these words of our Saviour, is derived all the Power of Bishops and Governours in the Church, who successively ordain Pastors; that the Church may be constituted upon Bishops. To whom I will only add Theodoret, upon that known place in the Psalms, lxxxvii. 1. His Foundation is in the Holy Mountains; which, in the spiritual Sense, being meant of the New Jerusalem, he thus expounds. The Foundations of Piety are the Divine Instructi­ons which Christ hath given us: the Holy Moun­tains, upon whom he hath laid these Foundations, are the Apostles of our Savioar: Who are thence cal­led themselves Foundations, because they laid the Foundation of Christianity by the Divine Instru­ctions, which they gave from Christ; according to that of St. Paul, which he immediately adds, Ye are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ himself being the chief Corner-Stone.

9. And therefore, when the Fathers treat of this very matter, they give other reasons why Christ named Peter only when he spake these words; not to give him any Prerogative, much less Monarchy; but to signifie the Unity he would have in his Church. This St. Cyprian discourses of at large, in words as express as can be desired. ‘Christ said to Peter, Upon this Rock [Page 49] I will build my Church; and tho he gave to all his Apostles, after his Resurrection, parem Po­testatem, equal Power; yet, ut Ʋnitatem mani­festaret, that he might declare the Unity he would have; he spake first to him alone, that on him he would build his Church.’ Not ma­king him by these words, it is plain, the Impe­rial Head of the Church, but only a representa­tive Type of its Unity. For he immediately adds, The rest of the Apostles were the very same that Peter was, endued with equal Co-partnership both of Honour and of Power; but the beginning proceeds from Ʋnity, that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one De Uni­te Ecclesiae Cathol. edit. Rigalt. p. 180. Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in so­lidum pars te­netur.. And a little after he con­siders all the Bishopricks in the World as one Mass or Lump, whereof every Bishop in the World hath an intire part. The like I might add out of Pope Symmachus himself, in a Letter to the Bishop of Arles Baron. ad An. 499. num. xxxvi., where he acknowledges, that as the power of the Holy Trinity is one, and undivided; so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops. But I have not room for more Authorities of this kind.

I will rather observe, That there is another plainer reason of Christ's speaking thus to St. Pe­ter, which is, that he was chosen by Christ to be­gin the glorious Work of gathering a Catholick Church, and therefore he directed his Speech particularly to him, as the Person who should be first imployed in this business, telling him, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; be­cause he was first to open the Gate or Door of Faith to the Gentiles, and let them into the Church [Page 50] of Christ. This appears from the memorable History of Cornelius; upon which he reflects when he tells the Apostles in the Council at Jerusalem, Ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my Mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe, Acts 15. 7. The words are more significant in the Greek. which we translate a good while ago, [...], from the ancient days, or the first times, God made choice of me from among the rest: which may well refer to those of our Saviour; whose times are the [...], (Mark 1. 1.) the begin­ning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, which St. Peter first published among the Gentiles.

This was an Honour peculiar to him, and be­stowed on him it's likely, because of the for­wardness of his Faith in Christ, and the vehe­mency of his Affection to him; as well as be­cause he was first chosen to be an Apostle. And with respect to this, we readily acknowledg, Christ promised something singular to him in these words; which was that he should first lay the Foundation of the Church among the Gentiles. Some add among the Jews also, because we read he was the first Speaker upon the day of Pente­cost, Acts 1. 14. But those words sufficiently in­timate that the rest of the Apostles then spake as well as he; especially if we compare them with what goes before, Vers. 7, 8, 9. where it is said, The Multitude heard them speak, every Man in his own Language, &c. Tertullian De Pudi­citia C. xxi. adds other in­stances [Page 51] of his first exercising the Power of the Keys; but none of them prove more than that he had the Honour to be primus, non supremus, first, not supream; Princeps, post quem alii dein­ceps, the chief, or beginning; whom all the rest followed in equal Power and Authority. For he was chief only in Order and Place, not in Do­minion, or Jurisdiction.

10. No: We must after all this consider, that our Lord when he spake these words, did not lay the Foundation of the Church, but only promises he would hereafter build his Church upon this Rock, and give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: For so the words are in the future Time, I will build, and I will give thee, &c. Now, as he makes this Promise to them all, I shewed before, in the next Chapter; so, when he actually gives this Power, which he saith here he will give, he bestows it upon every one of them, which was after his Resurrection; John 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you. Here he speaks in the present Time, and gives them, in this Com­mission, the Power, which they had not before; making them to be what they were ever after. In token of which, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever Sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Vers. 22, 23. Can any one who reads these words, think that Peter was only sent, and made the only Foundati­on, and the only Gate to let Men into the Church; when he hears such an Authority as this, granted and sealed to them all? He hath lost then the [Page 52] ancient sense of the Church, which Theophylact Mat. 16. 19. represents in these words, Though it was said to Peter only, [...], I will give thee, yet it was given to all the Apostles. When? Then, when he said, Whose soever Sins ye remit, they are remitted to them. For, I will give, denotes the future Time; that is, after the Resurrection. Hear also how St. Austin Enarra­tio in Psal. 87. discourses upon these words of the Psalmist before-mentioned; Why are they called the Foundations of the Apostles and Prophets? Be­cause their Authority supports our weakness. And why are they Gates? Because by them we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. For they preach to us; and when we enter by them, we enter by Christ. Is it not plain by this, that they did not think St. Peter to be the only Man that stands at the Gate, as it were, and with his Keys lets Men into Heaven? To say this, is as much as to say he only preached. Did not St. John preach also, and St. James? As for St. Paul, he laboured more than them all. Therefore I may truly say accor­ding to St. Austin's meaning, by John, and by James, as well as Peter, but especially by Paul, we have an entrance into the Kingdom of Hea­ven. They all had equal Power, they were all equally Gates, whereby Men entred into the New Jerusalem; they were all equally Founda­tions of the Church of Christ. St. Peter laid the first Stone, as he let in the first of the Gentiles; but St. Paul let in more than he afterwards; as appears by the whole Story of his preaching the Gospel of Christ.

[Page 53] To conclude this: St. Peter himself, it is ma­nifest, did not know of any such Authority, as is now claimed, residing in him. For, writing two Catholick Epistles, he gives not the least in­timation of any such Universal Pastorship, as is now pretended to be derived from him: but quite contrary, calls himself Fellow Elder with the Pa­stors of the Church; to whom he gives the same Exhortation, that Christ did to him, Feed the Flock of God, 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. which doth not differ in sense, from Feed my Sheep, or, Feed my Lambs, Joh. xxi. 15, 16. Nay more than this, in the Gospel, which the ancient Fathers say, St. Mark wrote by St. Peter's direction, he doth not so much as mention this Speech of Christ to him; but only his own Confession, Mark viii. 29. which we may look upon as an Argument, that he did not think it contained any Power, peculiar to him; which we may be sure he would not have forgotten.

Against so many weighty Reasons, some think Object. 1. it sufficient to argue for his Supremacy meerly from his being constantly named first, when there is occasion to speak of him. Five places are al­ledged for this purpose, Matth. x. 2. Mark iii. 17. Luke vi. 14. Acts i. 13. John xxi. 2. Unto which I think fit to make a short Reply.

First; That this is not such exact Truth, as Answ. to admit of no Exception. For there are no less than four places, where he is named with other [Page 54] Apostles, and not set the first. 1 Cor. iii. 22. & ix. 9. Gal. ii. 9. Joh. i. 45.

Secondly; Supposing it was done designedly in those places, where there is a Catalogue given of the Apostles, the meer placing of a Name first, will prove no Superiority of Power over those who are named after him, as might be shown from a great many instances. For any little ad­vantage of Age, Service, Affection, or the like, may well be a Reason for such Precedence.

Thirdly; The exact truth is, when they were together as a Colledge, it was necessary some one should be first in order: but afterward when they were scattered abroad all over the World, there was no such Precedence thought of. For others, I have shown, are named before him, and sometimes took place of him: as St. James did at Jerusalem, where he presided in the Council held there. Pe­ter indeed spake and delivered his Opinion first, but the Decree is made by James, who saith, after he had taken notice of what Simeon had spoken, [...], I determine, or judg, my Sentence is, (as we translate it) That we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God; but write to them, that they abstain from Pollutions if Idols, &c. Acts xv. 19, 20. And accordingly it was drawn up in his very words, in that Let­ter, which was written in the name of them all, to the Gentile Christians, Vers. 28, 29.

This is no novel Criticism of Protestants, but acknowledged, heretofore by eminent Writers in the Roman Communion. Alphonsus Tostatus In Mat. 17., [Page 55] for instance, observes that in this Council, Peter did not produce the definition of the Church; but James alone spake definitively, as the Organ of the whole Church, and greater than any of the Assessors. And later than this, Lorinus Comment. in Acta C. xv. fol. 645. the Je­suite, here notes, that James seems to speak au­thentically, and as a Judge; when Peter is said simply to have spoken his mind.

How easie were it here (if I durst take the li­berty to strain several Observations, beyond their true intention) to bid you mark and observe how St. James declares himself in this Council, the Head of the Church, set over all his Brethren. For, first, he being Bishop of Jerusalem, the Mo­ther-Church of the whole World, thus begins his Speech; Men and Brethren, hearken unto me, ver. 13. as if he were the Successor of Christ, of whom it was said, Hear ye Him. Next, (ver. 14.) he calls him who had spoken before him, bare Sime­on, not Peter now; as if that Name signified No­thing to him, who sate above him. For he adds, as I have said, his [...], I judge, or give this sentence. And, lastly, when Peter had pleaded for an absolute and indefinite liberty from the burden of all Legal Rites (ver. 10.) James thinks fit not to grant them an entire freedom, but to tie them still to some necessary Observances, ver. 19, 28.

But we have not thus learned Christ, (as S. Paul speaks) that is, the Christian Religion: though from less Circumstances than these, some endea­vour to prove the Monarchy of St. Peter.

[Page 56] Our Saviour, say they, speaks to him after such a particular manner, as argues he intended to Object. 2. bestow on him some particular Grace, not com­mon to him with others. For he calls him by the Name he had before he came to him, and mentions his Father's Name, and the Name he himself had given him; and then alludes to that Name of Peter, in the word Rock, and gave him a particular Blessing, upon occasion of a particu­lar Act, of his confessing Christ's Divinity, which God in particular revealed to him. All these show, that the Promise made to him, after such a way, and introduced with such peculiar Cir­cumstances, was not common to others, but pe­culiar to himself.

But after this labourious heaping up of meer circumstantial things, the Consequence they Answ. would infer from hence falls to the ground. Be­cause we are informed by him who cannot de­ceive us, that he did not design the great Power here promised particularly to him alone, but to them all: for what he promises here to him, ver. 19. he promises to them all in the next Chapter, xviii. 18. And besides this, as the substantial part of this Discourse belongs to them all; so most of the Circumstances which I have enume­rated, are common to others, and not peculiar to him. For others confessed his Divinity, and were taught it by God, and were blessed, and designed also for Stones in the Fabrick of the Church; as hath been already proved. So that [Page 57] there is nothing left but Simon Bar-jona (that is, his own Name, and his Fathers Name) and the Name of Peter, to support this weighty Foundati­on of St. Peter's Supremacy. And they are very slender things. For the mention of Barjona, Son of Jona, was necessary to distinguish this Simon, from the other Simon Zelotes: and Simon was necessary to be mentioned, that this Son of Jona might be distinguished from Andrew, who was his Son also. And as for the Name of Peter, tho we should grant it to be the very same with the Rock after mentioned, it is very far from proving that he alone had the thing, because he alone had the Name: for they were all Rocks, I have shown, in the same sense that he was a Rock. And the most we can gather from it, or from the rest of these peculiar Circumstances, is this; that he had the Honour promised him of being the first that should lay the Foundation of Faith among the Gentiles. Which St. Ambrose Serm. xlvii. de fide Petri Apostoli., or some other old Homilist that assumed his Name, makes the reason of his being called a Rock: Petra dicitur, eo quod primus in Nationibus, fidei fundamenta po­suerit; He is said to be the Rock, because he first laid the Foundations of Faith among the Na­tions. Which, notwithstanding, did not give him a Supremacy over them; but St. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. xi 13. and as God wrought so mightily with him, that he made great Conversions among them; so being brought to Christ, he had upon him the Care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. xi. 28. Which if St. Peter had any [Page 58] where said of himself, I am sure it would have been urg'd as an evident proof of his Universal Pastorship: but we make no such Inference from it for St. Paul, because we know Christ made no one Head of all Churches, nor gave to any of the Apostles, a Supremacy of Power, and Universa­lity of Jurisdiction.

V.

But beyond all this, there is still a higher Pre­sumption that they are guilty of, who extend the Prerogative supposed to be granted here to St. Pe­ter, unto all the succeeding Bishops of Rome, whom they make the Heirs of his Authority. In which there are a vast number of Suppositions, that can never be proved; as many Writers of our Church have shown, and therefore I will not here repeat them. It is sufficient to tell them, that they themselves are forced to grant, That some Speeches of our Saviour, were so personally directed to St. Peter, that he himself only was concerned in them, and not his Successors See Bel­larm. Q. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. xii. Resp. ad 5. Object. Calvini.. Now if any, there is great reason to look upon this as one of those Speeches which were limited to Peter's Person, and cannot be thought to be in­tended to any body after him. For,

1. First, the description of his Person, by the personal adjuncts, both of his Name, and of his Parentage, may most properly be urged to prove that this Speech is personal; limited to him alone by express terms of individual difference. And [Page 59] it is observable, that both here, when he saith he will build his Church upon him, and when he bids him Feed his Sheep, Joh. xxi. 15, 16, 17. he uses the very same terms of individual difference, calling him Simon Son of Jona: So that of all the places upon which they of the Church of Rome chiefly ground the claim of their Bishops, as his Successors, there are none more personal than these two; which most evidently restrain the words to Peter alone.

2. And this appears farther, from the impossi­bility that this Honour of founding the Church up­on him, should reach beyond his Person. Be­cause there can be no more Foundations of a Building, than are laid at first. All that comes after is built upon that, and is, as we call it, Su­perstructure. If St. Peter therefore were the Foundation of the Church, his Successors cannot be intended in this Name: because the Church is not still to be founded; but all that come after him, do themselves rely upon that Founda­tion.

3. But the chief thing of all is, That Christ did not lay such a Foundation of his Church, as might fail, and have need of the Succession of another: which was also to fail it self, and re­quired another continued Succession of Foundati­ons. For as the Author to the Hebrews proves from hence the Infirmity of the Aaronical Priest­hood; that their High-Priests being mortal, could not administer an Eternal Priesthood, which be­longs to Christ alone, who remains for ever: in [Page 60] like manner may we certainly argue in this mat­ter. If the Foundation of the Church must be constant and permanent, they cannot be the Foun­dation of it, who dying frequently, make it ne­cessary another should be substituted in their stead: But it was absolutely necessary the Foun­dation should be perpetual, immoveable, and un­alterable, always remaining the same, and ne­ver changing; and therefore we may be sure they are not the Rock on which the Church is built, who are in a perpetual change, and cannot con­tinue, but must give way to others. If we should allow such a Foundation of the Church, we must allow as many several Foundations as there are Popes: and so the Rock on which the Church is built, cannot be said to be one and the same for ever.

All which shows how true it is, that Peter himself was not that Rock on which Christ pro­mised to build his Church: unless we under­stand thereby only his Ministerial Function, which he did not exercise solely, but had all the rest Co-workers with him.

VI.

But let us, in the last place, suppose once more, that he was the Rock more than the rest; yet it is a strange Conclusion from hence, that Christ made him the Lord and sole Governour of his Church. For what relation hath a Rock to Power, Government, and Dominion? We may as soon [Page 61] draw Water out of a Pumice, as any such Doctrine out of this word Rock; which hath relation only to Solidity, Firmness, Stedfastness, or something of that kind; as appears from the very nature of the word, and the use of it in all Authors; where it never imports any thing of that which is now so much pleaded for, and made the Subject of the greatest Contests.

And therefore those Writers who expound these words of Peter, say nothing of his Dominion, much less of the Dominion of the Popes of Rome, for which there is now so much stickling; but they give us quite another reason, why he is called the Rock. Because of the solidity of his Devo­tion, saith one: because he was [...], as hard as a Rock, or stone, in the Faith, saith ano­ther: because of the [...], the firm­ness of his Faith, saith a third: because of his Faith in the true Rock, saith a fourth: because also he laid the first Foundation of Faith among the Gentiles: and because that this Faith which he professed, viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is the first Principle of our Religion, the begin­ning of Christianity, the Foundation and Bottom of all that we believe. In which Faith he was so stedfast, that he did not fluctuate in uncertainty, like the rest of the Jews, some of which said, he was Elias, others Jeremias, others John the Bap­tist, but was setled in this constant Perswasion, that Jesus was the Son of God; which he as con­stantly preached unto others, and converted unto this Faith.

[Page 62] I have not thought it necessary to quote the Authors, where all these things may be found: I will only name Epiphanius Haeres. lix. num. 7, 8., who speaking of St. Peter, whom he calls the most principal of the Apostles, he adds, Who truly was to us a firm Rock, founding the Faith of the Lord, upon which the Church is altogether built. First, when he confessed Christ to be the Son of the Living God, and heard our Saviour say, Ʋpon this Rock, of an unshaken Faith, will I build my Church. And again, he was a firm Rock, the Foundation of the House of God; when denying Christ, he returned, and had those words said unto him, Feed my Sheep. For Christ saying this; draws us to Repentance; that on him may be built again a well-grounded Faith, which doth not de­ny Life to those that truly repent.

Who doth not see, that this Father thought he was the Rock, because he laid the Foundation of Faith in us? And there are those who think, he had the Name of Peter given him, to show also the Difficulties and Dangers he was to go through, in that Imployment unto which he was called, of preaching the Faith.

But more than such things as these, is not to be drawn out of these words. No such thing as the Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome; which is a­nother Presumption built upon this word Rock. For supposing Peter to be the Rock; that is, saith Bellarmine, the Foundation of the Church; thence it follows, he could not err: because then the Foundation would prove ruinous, and the Church, which is the Building, would fall to the ground. [Page 63] And consequently his Successors cannot err, for the same reason; because they are what he was, the Foundation upon which the Church relies, and if they should fail, the Christian Religion might come to nothing. Which is so wretched a sort of reasoning, that it shows the greatest Wits were not able to say any thing considerable in this cause. For it supposes that, which hath no proof at all, that Peter was the sole Foundation of the Church. If he were not, then, if this reasoning be good, it proves all Bishops, who are the Successors of the Apostles (and frequently so called by ancient Writers) to be infallible.

But I shall say no more of this; for there are so many flaws in such Discourses, as derive to the Successors, all that was in Peter, or the rest of the Apostles, that they are not easily numbred; and I have said enough I hope to show, that all the pretensions of the present Church of Rome, grounded upon this place, are weak and without any bottom. They fall to the ground when we come to touch them with one rational thought; and prove like a Building that hath no Foundati­on. Or, they are not like a Structure built on a Rock; but like a House that Men build on the Sand. There is nothing of solidity, nothing of strength in their Arguments upon this Subject: but after much pains to connect a great many things together, they fall asunder like a Rope of Sand. There is no solid reason to make us think that our Lord spake here of Peter, and not of Himself: Or, if he spake of Peter, that he [Page 64] meant his Person, and not that Doctrine which he preached. And no reason in the Earth that he spake concerning himself, or his Doctrine only to Peter, and not to them all: Or, if we should make this large grant, that he spake only of Pe­ter, there is not the least shadow of reason, to make us think he spake of his Dominion, and su­pream Power; but only of his stedfastness in the Faith, and his being the first Instrument in ga­thering a Church among the Gentiles: tho he was not the prime Instrument, if we thereby understand the chiefest and greatest, for that was St. Paul.

Some Ʋses of what hath been said.

I.

And therefore we are a true Church, though we have nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome. This is no part of the definition of a Church, that it is united to him as its Head; but it is in­tire without it. The Bishop of Rome makes all his claim from St. Peter; who, it is plain, had no Universal Jurisdiction granted or promised in these words; and therefore the Pope can get no­thing by them. Faith in Christ Jesus, Commu­nion with our Christian Brethren, and Subjecti­on to those Pastors who are over us in the Lord, are sufficient to make us a Church, whether the Pope will or no. Though there were no such Bi­shop in the World; though the Chair of St. Pe­ter were overturned, and no where to be found; [Page 65] the Church of Christ would be where it was, built upon the Foundations of the Apostles and Pro­phets. There is not one of the Apostles that say a word, in their Writings, of the Prerogative of St. Peter. Among all their Admonitions to the Churches, they never bid them be subject unto him, much less to his Successors: but only to those that rule over them, to those that admonish them, and watch for their Souls; that is, to their own Pastors and Governors, in those places where they lived.

II.

Since therefore we are undoubtedly a true Church of Christ, though we have no depen­dance on him, and should have been so though we had never heard there was such a Bishop in the World: let us be mindful of the Exhortation of the Apostle St. Jude, ver. 20, 21. which contains the properest Use of what hath been said.

20. But ye, Beloved, building up your selves on your most holy Faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21. Keep your selves in the Love of God, looking for the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto Eternal Life.

First; Build up your selves on your most holy Faith. Do not think of building upon the Suc­cessor of St. Peter, as the Priests of the Church [Page 66] of Rome would perswade you: but upon that Christ, and that most holy Faith, on which St. Pe­ter himself was built.

There are three things which the Apostles of our Lord speak concerning Faith.

First, They speak of laying the Foundation of it: which I hope is done already, so that there is no need to exhort you to it: but I may say, as the Apostle doth to the Hebrews, Ch. vi. 1. Let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the Founda­tion of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God.

Secondly, They speak of continuing in the Faith, for by that we continue in the Church, the Body of Christ. Rom. xi. 20. Thou standest by Faith, 2 Cor. i. ult. by Faith ye stand.

Thirdly, Of continuing stedfast in it; Col. ii. 5. I rejoyce, beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your Faith in Christ. 1 Cor. xvi. 13. Stand fast in the Faith.

And here St. Jude adds an Exhortation to build­ing up our selves on it; to endeavour, that is, to increase and grow strong in Faith, by understand­ing all the Grounds and Reasons on which it re­lies, by observing all the Testimonies which God hath given to his Son Jesus Christ: for this is the very Foundation of Religion (to use the words of St. Chrysostom) the original of Righteousness, the head and fountain of Sanctity, the beginning of all [Page 67] true Devotion, the light of the Soul, and the gate of Eternal Life.

But we need not go to Rome for any of these; and particularly we may know this great thing, St. Chrysostom speaks of; and be sure without con­sulting them, that the Son of God is come (as it is in the last Verse but one of the first Epistle of St. John) and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true (i. e. the true God, whose Nature, and Will is declared by him) and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ; that is, Children of the true God, or his chosen People, in or by his Son Jesus Christ; that is, by hearty Faith in him, who is his only Be­gotten, of one substance with the Father, full of Grace and Truth.

Of all this, I say we may be sure, (and this, as it there follows, is the true God, and Eternal Life) though we never know whether there be such a place as Rome, and such a Bishop as the Pope: of whom many Christians, no doubt, in several parts of the World, never heard so much as one word. And therefore let us not be so weak as to think we must needs use any of his Tools and Instruments, for the laying the Founda­tion, or for the building up our selves in the Chri­stian Faith. Which relies upon the Testimony of all the Apostles; whose words we have recorded in the holy Books, and no where else: and which all the Ministers of Christ have as much Autho­rity to expound as they; and can give as good reason for what they say; as appears by what [Page 68] hath been said upon this place, which is the Principle from whence they would wring (for derive they cannot) so great a Power as they challenge. To which if you submit, it is to un­do all that you have done, to lay again the Foun­dation of Faith, or rather to overturn it; and build upon Human Authority instead of Divine. Which is one thing, that would prevail with you, if it were considered, not to give up your selves to their Directions: whose great labour it is to unsettle your Faith, not to strengthen it; to make you doubtful of every thing in the Christian Religion, not to build you up on the Faith of Christ.

Secondly; But besides this, he would have us pray in the Holy Ghost. That is, ardently and with such devout Affections, as the Holy Ghost sometimes inspires; and for such things as the Holy Ghost teaches us to ask, in the holy Gospel, which is the Mind of the Spirit of God; and e­specially to pray thus in the Christian Assemblies. For the Apostle here opposes these things, to the practice of those that separated themselves, being sensual, having not the Spirit, ver. 19. Our Lord would have us pray always, and in our Closet, e­specially in the Assemblies of our Christian Bre­thren: where we must take heed of being frigid or luke-warm; of praying to gratify any of our Carnal Desires, especially that of Revenge (as St. James teaches us, ch. iv. 1, 2, 3.) and of praying in the Name of St. Peter, or St. Paul, or any [Page 69] other Saint or Angel; for which the Holy Ghost hath given no direction; but quite contrary told us, by the Mouth of his holy Apostles, that to us there is but one God and one Lord, 1 Cor. viii. 6. One God, and one Mediator between God and Man, 1 Tim. ii. 5. So that, to use any other, is to fall into a Schism, to spoil the Unity, and break the Communion of the Church of Christ: as they of the Church of Rome have done; both by this, and by changing the ancient Government, Disci­pline and Faith of the Christian Church: which believed nothing heretofore, concerning St. Peter, and his Successor's Supream Power over all the Bishops in the World: who took themselves to be the Vicars of Christ, as much as the Bishop of Rome. Take a Review of what I have said, and you will see that it is they who have separated them­selves from the rest of the Christian World, by usurping this Universal Jurisdiction, as well as by many other things; and so broken that Cha­rity, and quenched that loving and kind Spirit, which gives the greatest efficacy to our Prayers, and makes them most fervent and most prevalent. Joyn not therefore your selves to them; but as the Apostle adds in the third place,

Thirdly, Keep your selves in the Love of God. Our Lord Christ tells you how, Joh. xv. 10. If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my Love, &c. adding ver. 12. This is my Command­ment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you: which he repeats again, Verse 17. These [Page 70] things I command you, that ye love one another.

Have a sincere and hearty Affection for all Christian People; and imitate not the Romanists, who are out of Charity with the far greatest part of the Christian World.

This Love of God and of our Brethren (which are inseparable) is the fruit of Faith and of Pray­er: without which they are nothing worth. We must not only lift up our Hands to God, which is a description of Prayer: but lift up our Hands also unto his Commandments, which we have loved (Psal. cxix. 48.) which is to do God's Will, with a sincere Affection to it. Without such fruits of Faith, we shall not be able to stand fast, in time of Temptation, as Men built upon a Rock: No, our Lord hath told us, that they who hear his Word and do it not, are like to a Man that built his House upon the Sand; which is soon over­turned.

If we profess then this Faith which St. Peter confessed, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, which is the Foundation of Christi­anity; let us be faithful and obedient unto him in all things. For what he hath bidden us do, as well as what he hath bidden us believe, comes with the very same Authority; and ought to be look'd upon as the words of the ever living God, by his only begotten Son: whom he hath sent to reclaim the World, both from their Infidelity, and from their Impiety.

This is part of the Foundation of our Religion, that we renounce all Wickedness; as well as that [Page 71] we believe our Lord Jesus, to be the eternal Son of God. So St. Paul teaches us, as we translate his words, 2 Tim. ii. 19. The Foundation of God standeth sure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: And, let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from Iniquity. As much as to say, this a setled Truth in the Christian Re­ligion, that they are Christ's, they alone are known, or approved by him, who so profess Be­lief in him, as to depart from Iniquity. A pro­fession of his Faith we ought to make; but not content our selves with that alone. We must add something to it, and St. Peter tell us what, 2 Pet. i. 5, 6, 7. Add to your Faith, Vertue; and to Vertue, Knowledg; and to Knowledg, Temperance; and to Temperance, Patience; and to Patience, God­liness; and to Godliness, brotherly Kindness; and to brotherly Kindness, Charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren, nor unfruitful in the Knowledg of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so, as St. Jude teaches you in the last place,

Fourthly, You may look for the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto Eternal Life. That is, have a good hope to be saved in the day of the Lord, by the great Grace and Mercy of God in Christ Jesus. Stedfastly expect this, and wait for it with a patient hope; whatsoever any Man can say to discourage you. Let it not shake you, nor make you doubt of the Mercy of God in this way; unto which the Holy Ghost directs us: [Page 72] all the Power, to which the Pope pretends from St. Peter, shall never be able to shut you out of Heaven.

He may shut out himself, by his unjust Usur­pations, and by his Uncharitableness; and by his unwarrantable Additions to the Christian Do­ctrine and Religion: but none of those, who trust in God after this manner which I have de­clared, shall ever be confounded. Let him thun­der and lighten as much as he pleases, it shall ne­ver hurt, and therefore should not fright any of those pious Souls: nor shall their hope ever make them ashamed. The sound of Damnation per­petually in their Ears, they ought to hear as an empty noise, and vain words, which should not so much as startle, much less terrify them, or turn them out of the way wherein they are.

All the Conceit which others may have of their own Merits, and of the Merits of the Saints, and of the Treasures of their Church, and the Indulgences of the Pope, shall never avail them so much, as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ towards those who look for his appearing unto Eternal Life; by an holy Faith, and by ar­dent Devotion, and by unfeigned Love to God, and to all Christian People. Which cannot fail to commend us sufficiently unto him, who is able, as it follows in St. Jude, to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his Glory with exceeding Joy.

[Page 73] You ought not to question it, nor suffer others to raise doubts in your Minds about it; but in assured hope of it, continually bless and praise the Father of Mercies, who hath called you into his Church, chosen you to be his People, wrought Faith, and Love, and hope of Eternal Life in you; saying (as he concludes his Epistle) To the only Wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power, both now and ever. Amen.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

  • PAge 6. line 14. for. would not, read could not.
  • P. 24. l. 14. Marg. r. Faelix iii.
  • P. 30. l. antepen. r. the greatest.
  • P. 33. l. 19. r. that they make.
  • P. 41. l. 21. f. prevent, r. pervert.
  • P. 45. l. 18. r. next Chapter but one.
  • P. 51. l. 17. r. next Chapter but one.
  • P. 56. l. 23. r. next Chapter but one.

An Advertisment Of Books printed for Richard Chiswell.

THE History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILBERT BƲRNET, D. D. in two Volumes. Folio.

The Moderation of the Church of England, in her Re­formation, in avoiding all undue Compliances with Pope­ry and other sorts of Phanaticisms, &c. By TIMOTHY PƲLLER, D. D. Octavo.

A Dissertation concerning the Government of the An­cient Church: more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees. By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo.

An Answer to Mr. Serjeants [Sure Footing in Christi­anity] concerning the Rule of Faith: With some o­ther Discouses. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D. D. Quarto.

A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BƲRNET, D. D. Octavo.

The History of the Gunpowder Treason, col­lected from Approved Authors, as well Popish as Protestant. With a Vindication of the said History, and of the Proceedings and Matters relating thereunto, from the Exceptions which have been made against it, and more [Page] especially of late Years, by the Author of the Catholick Apology, and others. Quarto.

A Relation of the barbarous and bloody Massacre of about an hundred thousand Protestants, begun at Paris, and carried on over all France, in the Year 1572. Col­lected out of Mezeray, Thuanus, and other Approved Authors. Quarto.

The Apology of the Church of England; and an Epi­stle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concer­ning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Sarisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bi­shop; Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo.

A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion. Together with the Me­thods proposed by them for their Conviction. Transla­ted into English, and examined, By GILB. BƲRNET, D. D. Octavo.

The Life of WILLIAM BEDLE, D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland. Together with certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition in Sevil) in matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Quarto.

The Decree made at Rome the second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto.

A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts.

[Page] A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. Quarto.

A Papist not misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Pa­pist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto.

An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, in the several Articles proposed by the late Bishop of Condom, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church]. Quarto.

A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 4 o

A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer there­unto. By a Protestant of the Church of England, Octavo. The Second Edition corrected: with a Vindication of a Passage in the said Catechism from the Exceptions made against it, in A Reply to the Answer of the Amicable Accommodation.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.