the eleven Apostles, as is evident by the plural style through- CHAP. out that commission. 21. IV. 21. Secondly, the words Matt. xvi. are only a promise in Matt. xvi. the future, what Christ will afterwards do, and so the dona- [19.] tion there set down only by way of πρόληψιs, or “ anticipation," and if the making this promise to him peculiarly seem to make any thing for him, then the repetition of that pro- Matt. xviii. mise, which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely, will take 18. off that appearance, where it is λέγω ὑμῖν, and ὅσα ἐὰν Snonтe, "I say unto you," to all of them equally and without δήσητε, any peculiarity of restriction, "whatsoever ye shall bind," &c. The applying the words particularly to St. Peter hath one special energy in it, and concludes that the ecclesiastical power of economy or stewardship in Christ's house, of which the keys are the token, belongs to single persons, such as Isa. xxii. St. Peter was, and not only to consistories or assemblies, that whatsoever St. Peter acted by virtue of Christ's power thus promised, he should be fully able to act himself, without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did, clave non errante, no one, or more men, on earth could rescind without him, which is a just ground of placing the power ecclesiastical in single persons, and not in communities, in the prelate of each Church, and not in the presbytery. But still this is no confining of this power to St. Peter, any more than to any other single Apostle, who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them, as here St. Peter is pretended and acknowledged to have; to which purpose, as the words of Scripture are most clear,—and accordingly the Matt. xviii. promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one, to judge, i. e. to rule, or preside in the Church, [28.] and when that promise was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit, the fire that represented that Spirit was divided, Acts ii. and ékállσe, "sat upon every one of them," without any pecu[3.] liar mark allowed St. Peter, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and so this promise equally performed, as it was made to all,—so is this exactly the notion which the ancient fathers of the Church appear to have had of them. Thus Theophylact, according to St. Chrysostom's sense, ei yàp 3 [ὡς Θεός, λέγει τὸ, δώσω σοι, ἐξουσιαστικῶς ὡς γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ δέδωκέ σοι τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, οὕτως ἐγὼ τὰς κλεῖς 18. IV. CHAP. καὶ πρὸς Πέτρον μόνον εἴρηται, τὸ, Δώσω σοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ̓Αποστόλοις δέδοται, “Though the words I will give thee' were delivered to St. Peter alone, yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apostles." St. Cyprianh hath an eminent place to this purpose, Dominus noster ... episcopi honorem et ecclesiæ suæ rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur, et dicit Petro, Ego tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus, ... et tibi dabo claves... Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et Ecclesiæ ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus Ecclesiæ per eosdem [præpositos] gubernetur; "Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering His Church, saith unto Peter, 'I will give thee the keys.'. . . From this promise of His, the ordination of bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissitudes; so that the Church is built upon bishops (in the plural) and every ecclesiastic act is governed by them." So St. Ambrose, Claves illas regni cœlorum [quas] in beato Petro [Apostolo] cuncti suscepimus sacerdotes," All we bishops have in St. Peter received those keys of the kingdom of heaven." And accordingly St. Athanasius mentions the office of bishop as one of those things & ὁ κύριος διὰ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων τετύπωκε, “ which Christ effigiated or formed in or by the Apostles." And St. Basil the Great1 calls episcopacy προεδρίαν τῶν ̓Αποστόλων, “ the presidency of the Apostles," the very same that Christ bestowed upon all, and not only on one of them. The Romanists' argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated. 22. By all which it is evident again, that the power which Christ's commission instated on St. Peter, was in like manner intrusted to every other single Apostle as well as to him, and consequently that this of universal pastor was no personal privilege or peculiarity of St. Peter's. 23. Thirdly, that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter,-TETρòs, "a rock" or λυούσας τὰς τῶν σφαλμάτων ἢ συγχω- Theophyl. in Matt. xvi. 18.] Epist. xxvii. {in init.] [S. Ambros. Supposit.] de dign. Sacerd. [cap. 1. tom. i. p. 358.] S. Athanas. Epist. ad Dracont. [cap. 3. tom. i. p. 265.] 1 [αὐτός σε ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ τῶν κριτῶν τῆς γῆς ἐπὶ τὴν καθέδραν (al. προεδρίαν) τῶν ἀποστόλων μετέθηκεν.—S. Basil. Epist. 197. (al. 55.) Ambrosio, p. 288.] IV. "foundation stone,"-bestowed on him by Christ, as if that CHAP. were sufficient to found this pretended supremacy, is presently evacuated and retorted on the pretenders, when it is remembered, 1. that Térpos, and Térpa, directly the same, signifies vulgarly "a stone," (μvλоeidéï πéтρw, in Homer's Iliad, n. [270.]) and of itself denotes no more, but by the con- Matt. xvi. text, being applied to a building must needs signify a founda- 18., tion stone; and then, 2. that all the twelve Apostles are in like manner, and not he only, or above any other,-styled Deμério Sádeka, "twelve foundations," each of which stones Rev. xxi. having the name of an Apostle on it, in respect of the power and dignity that belonged to every one, is severally compared to a precious stone; and it being there in vision apparent, that the wall of the city, i. e. of the Church, being measured exactly, was found to be an hundred and forty-four, i. e. twelve times twelve cubits, it is evident that that mensuration assigns an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apostles, which is again a prejudice to the universal pastorship of any one of them. 14. CHAP. V. THE EVIDENCES FROM THE BISHOP OF ROME SUCCEEDING ST. PETER EXAMINED. succession Peter, but to have 1. FROM this argument of the pretenders as it respects No priviSt. Peter's person, and hath been thus manifested to be lege by, utterly incompetent to infer the designed conclusion, it is from St. now very easy, but withal very unnecessary, to proceed to as St. Peter the other part of it, as it concerns St. Peter's successors in is proved his episcopal, or, which is all one as to this matter, his apo- himself. stolical seat and power at Rome; for certainly what he had not himself, he cannot devolve to any of his successors upon that one score of succeeding him, and therefore as this of St. Peter's personal power and eminence is the principal, so it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists' pretensions, this other of derivative power in his successor being like water that flows from a spring, apt to ascend no higher than the fountain stood, and therefore I again think fit to remind CHAP. the Romanist, and peremptorily to insist on this exception, V. that if he cannot make good St. Peter's ecumenical power The privileges attending St. Peter's successor and pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles from the donation of Christ,-which I suppose hath been evidenced he cannot do, and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose, and drawn either from "Feed My sheep," and "lambs," or from the mention of the two swords, or from "Thou art Peter," they have so little appearance of strength in them, and have so often been answered by those of our persuasion, that I cannot think it useful or seasonable to descend to any further survey of them,-his other pretensions are at an end for the universal pastorship of the pope, his successor, whose power and authority over all other bishops cannot further be extended,-upon this account of succession,-than St. Peter's was over all other Apostles, the several bishops of the world holding from (as succeeding) some Apostle or other, as certainly as the bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed St. Peter, according to that of Tertullian", Sicut Smyrnæorum Ecclesia Polycarpum a Joanne collocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit, perinde utique et cæteræ exhibent quos ab Apostolis in episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent; "As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their bishop from St. John, and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement, their bishop, was ordained by St. Peter, in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles, and who have brought down and derived the apostolic seed unto them." 2. What therefore I shall now add in return to the second branch of this argument, concerning the power of St. Peter's successor, as such, will be perfectly ex abundanti, "more than belonging needs," and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader, the bishop whose curiosity perhaps may require further satisfaction of Antioch when his reason doth not; and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations. First, whether rather to than of Rome. St. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch, and leave a successor bishop there, as at Rome he is supposed to have done? 2. whether this were not done m De Præscript., cap. 32. V. by him before ever he came to Rome? 3. whether the con- CHA P. cession of these two unquestioned matters of fact do not devolve all power and jurisdiction on the bishop of Antioch, St. Peter's successor there, which by that tenure and claim of succession from St. Peter can be pretended to by the bishop of Rome, St. Peter's successor also? Nay, whether the right of primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side than any circumstance on the other side which can be offered to counterbalance it; that he which succeeded him in his first seat, Antioch, is, if there be force in the argument of succession, to be looked on as the chief of his strength, partaker of more power by virtue of that succession, than he that afterward succeeded him at Rome? 3. This we know, that anciently there were three patriarchates, and Antioch was one of them, as Rome was another; and though I, who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from St. Peter, am not engaged to affirm that Antioch was the chief of these, yet this I contend, that there is much less reason that any precedence which is afforded Rome by the ancient canons should be deemed imputable to this succession from St. Peter, when it is evident that claim belongs to Antioch as well as to Rome, and first to Antioch, and afterwards to Rome, and no otherwise to Rome than as it was first competible to Antioch. another score. 4. Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or The priorder belonged to that, the next place to Alexandria, the may be longed to third to Antioch, which is an evidence that the succession Rome upon from St. Peter was not considered in this matter, for then Alexandria, which held only from St. Mark, must needs have yielded to Antioch which held from St. Peter. The original of this precedence or dignity of the bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth general council holden at Chalcedon ", confirming the decree of the council of Constantinople, that that see shall have toa πpeoßeîa, “equal privileges," and dignities, and advantages with Rome, upon this account, that Constantinople was new Rome, and the seat of the empire at that time; which, say they, was the reason,—and not any donation of Christ's to St. Peter, or succession of that bishop from him,-that Rome enjoyed such [See note u, p. 226.] |