Skip to main content

"Not one key in all that bunch": Laud against the papal supremacy

On this Saint Peter's Day, words from William Laud - in debate with his papalist opponent - on how the claims of the papal supremacy overthrow the apostolic order:

For he tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor, and therefore to him we must have recourse. The Fathers, I deny not, ascribe very much to S. Peter: But 'tis to S. Peter in his own person. And among them, Epiphanius is as free, and as frequent in extolling S. Peter, as any of them: And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right ... But that S. Peter was any Rock, or Foundation of the Church, so as that he and his Successors must be relied on in all matters of Faith, and govern the Church like Princes, or Monarchs, that Epiphanius never thought of. And that he did never think so, I prove it thus. For beside this apparent meaning of his Context (as is here expressed) how could he possibly think of a Supremacy due to S. Peter's Successor, that in most express terms, and that twice repeated, makes S. James the Brother of our Lord, and not S. Peter, succeed our Lord in the Principality of the Church. And Epiphanius was too full both of Learning and Industry, to speak contrary to himself in a Point of this moment.

... And he still tells us, the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor. Well. Suppose that. What then? What? Why then he succeeded in all S. Peter's Prerogatives which are Ordinary, and belonged to him as a Bishop, though not in the Extraordinary, which belonged to him as an Apostle. For that's it which you all say, but no man proves ... Peter in his Ordinary Power was never made Pastor of the whole Church: Nay, in his Extraordinary, he had no more powerful Principality than the other Apostles had. A Primacy of Order was never denied Him by the Protestants: And an Universal Supremacy of Power was never granted him by the Primitive Christians. Yea, but Christ promised the Keys to Saint Peter, S. Mat. 16. True, but so did he to all the rest of the Apostles, S. Mat. 18. and S. Joh. 20. And to their Successors, as much as to His. So 'tis I give the Keys to thee and them, not to thee to exclude them. Unless any man will think Heaven-Gates so easy, that they might open and shut them without the Keys. And S. Augustine is plain: If this were said only to S. Peter, then the Church hath no power to do it; which God forbid! The Keys therefore were given to S. Peter, and the rest, in a Figure of the Church, to whose power, and for whose use They were given. But there's not one Key in all that Bunch, that can let in S. Peter's Successor, to a more powerful Principality universal than the Successors of the other Apostles had.

From A relation of the conference between William Laud, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...
25 comments
Read more

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...
19 comments
Read more

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...
2 comments
Read more