Reims Against Rome, Propositions · Proposition 19
XIX. Propoſition. That S. Peter was Head of the Church.
THough the former Poſition ouerthrowne ſufficiently confuteth this; for if Peter be not Superiour ouer the Apoſtles, who were the principall members of the Church, he cannot be the Head of the Church: yet ſeeing this Headſhip ouer the Church is ſo ſtiffely ſtood in; I thought good to handle it alſo diſtinctly from the reſt, for more euidence of the truth to common Chriſtians.
Confuted by their owne Bible.
I. By appropriation, it giueth the title of Head of the Church onelyonly to Chriſt, Epheſ. 1. 22. & 4. 15. & 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. And no where doth it make a man the Head of the Church, neither Peter, nor any other; either expreſſely, or by any neceſſarie conſequent,
II. It calleth the Church the bodie of Chriſt, 1. Cor. 12. 27. Epheſ. 4. 12. & 6. 23. No where is it called the body of S. Peter.
III. It telleth vsus, that Saint Peter himſelfe giueth to Chriſt Headſhip, Principalitie and Chieftie, and to none other: for he calleth him the Prince of Paſtors, 1. Pet. 5. 4. the Paſtor and Biſhop of our ſoules, 1. Pet. 2. 25. as he is alſo called the high Prieſt of our confeſſion, Heb. 3. 1.
IV. The Apoſtles did not know, or acknowledge any ſuch Primacy or Headſhip in Peter: For firſt, they ſent Peter and Iohn to Samaria, Act. 8. 14. which they neither would, nor could hauehave done, had he been their Gouernour and Head indeed. Secondly, Iames, in the Councell at Ieruſalem, tooke no notice of Peters ſupremacy: for Iames did then call him Simon (his name, before he was an Apoſtle) without any title of preeminencie, Acts 15. 14. Hee alſo ſaid, I iudge, (which word Peter there vſed not,) verſ. 19. to whoſe ſentence and iudgement, Peter and all the Apoſtles and Ancients did ſubſcribe, verſ. 22. Thirdly, none of the other Apoſtles then, did acknowledge any Headſhip in Peter: for the Decree of the Councell went out vnderunder the conioynt authoritie of all, without ſpeciall mentioning of Peter, Act. 15. 23. and 16. 4. Fourthly, Saint Paul knew of no ſuch Chieftie in Peter: for firſt, when he doth mention any word tending to ſet out any greatneſſe in the Apoſtles, hee applyeth it not ſingularly, as to one, but plurally as to moe. Thus, 2. Cor. 11. 5. he ſpeakes of great Apoſtles; 2. Cor. 12. 11. of ſuch as were aboue meaſure Apoſtles (ſo Rhemiſts doe tranſlate, butforeign. we, the chiefe Apoſtles;) and Gal. 2. 9. of ſuch as ſeemed to bee Pillars, and namely, them. Againe, theſe Apoſtles ſo great, the Chiefe, the Pillars, among whom was Peter, hee doth equall himſelfe, ſaying, that hee was nothing leſſe, nor had done nothing leſſe then they, 2. Cor. 12. 11. and 11. 5. neither added they any thing to him, Gal. 2. 6. As touching Peter more particularly, Saint Paul reſiſted him in his face, before all, Gal. 2. 11, 14. did ſhare with him fully in Commiſſion: for as Peter was the Apoſtle of the Circumciſion, ſo was Paul of the prep…ce, or Vncircumciſion, verſ 7. and did compare with him in the effectuall worke of the Miniſtery, verſ. 8. All which he would not hauehave done, had Peter been the Head of the Church; for it had been arrogancy in him. Moreouer, when he named ſome of the Apoſtles as Pillars, he mentioneth Iames, and giueth him the firſt place before Peter; belike forgetting Peters Headſhip. Laſtly, when Saint Paul had fit occaſion offered to ſpeake, if euer, of Saint Peters Headſhip, 1. Cor. 1. 12. when ſome held of Paul himſelfe, ſome of Apollor, ſome of Cephas, he ſpeaketh not one word thereof, as not knowing, nor acknowledging any ſuch primacy in Peter: for had he knowne it at all, much more to hauehave been ſuch an eſſentiall point of Religion, as Papiſts make it, he would vndoubtedly hauehave taught it. But neither hee, not any other Apoſtle▪ louelove go of any ſuch high point, as the Papiſts ſince hauehave forged, to gull the World withall.
V. None of the foure Euangeliſts, nor Saint Luke, when hee wrote the Acts knew of any ſuch dignitie: for they neuer write of him as the Head of the Church. They name him but as they doe the reſt, calling him Simon, or Simon Beter, without any title of eminency aboue other.
VI. The Church in the Apoſtles dayes, know not of any ſuch honour to belong vntounto him: for ſome did call him: to an account of his doings, Act. 11. 2, 3. neither did they yeeld him any ſuch principalitie. The Corinthians, of whom ſome equalled Paul, and others, Apoll…s with him, had not yet learned this note aboue Ela.
VII. And laſtly, it is alſo cleare by their owne Bible, that Peter himſelfe knew of to Much ſupreme authoritie, for firſt, he went at the other Apoſtles ſending of him, Act. 8. 14. Secondly, he gaue to the Church an account of his proceeding, when they found fault with him; Act. 11. 2, 3. Thirdly, he gaue to Saint Paul the right hand of ſooretie or fellowſhip, Gal. 2. 9. Fourthly, being openly rebuked, he ſubmitted thereto, verſ. 11. Fifthly, he was not ſo much as Preſident of the Councell at Ieruſalem, Act. 15. Sixthly, he neuer vndertooke matters of the Church of his owne head, or by his ſole authoritie. In teaching the neceſſitie of electing another Apoſtle, not he, but they, to wit, the men then aſſembled, appointed two, vpō whom the lots were to be caſt, Act. 1. 23. In ordaining Deacons, the twelue Apoſtles gaue their aduice together, and impoſed their hands vpō them, Act. 6. 2, 6. No ſpeciall mention of Peter aboue, before, or alone from the reſt. Seuenthly, he in his Epiſtles, ſtileth himſelfe by the title of an Apoſtle, 1. Pet. 1. 1. and no higher. Neither doth he in either of his Epiſtles, expreſſe any ſigne or token of any other authority, but rather the cleane contrary firſt, by equalling himſelfe to others his inferiours, calling himſelfe a fellow-Elder,foreign. 1. Pet. 5. 1. yet neuer the Seruant of Seruants, the ſtile of curſed Cham, fit for the Pope. By forbidding others to Lord it ouer Gods heritage, 1. Pet. 5. 3. By appropriating to Chriſt the title of Prince of Paſtors, verſ. 4. which now they that pretend to be Saint Peters heytes, ſhame not to arrogate to themſelues. So farre is he from dreaming of an vniuerſall Headſhip. And laſtly, we find not that hee euer vſed this authoritie of Headſhip: which if it had been laid vponupon him by Chriſt, he ought to hauehave done, yea, and he would hauehave exerciſed it. For what Chriſt impoſed vponupon him, hee performed: As to preach the Goſpell, Mark. 16. 16. to doe the office of an Apoſtle, Luk. 6. 13. to worke Miracles, Matth. 10. to be a witneſſe of Chriſt, Act. 1. 8. Theſe and other ſuch offices he performed, and the other hee would hauehave done, had any ſuch dignitie been beſtowed vponupon him.
Contraried by Antiquitie.
For, as before is ſhewed, Cyprian, Ierome, Origen, Ambroſe, Auguſtine, and alſo Chryſoſtome, in Matth. and in Gal. 2. makeOn Mat. 16. tract. 1. all the Apoſtles like equall with Peter.
Auſtin: de verbis Dom. ſer. 13. maketh Chriſt the Rocke, and not Peter, but Peter to be eſtabliſhed vponupon the Rocke, in Concion. ad Catechum. ca. 12. in his retractions, li. 1. ca. 21. Hilary de Trinit. l. 2. makes Chriſt the Rocke, confeſſed by Peter▪ Ierome in Lucam. ca. 16. telleth vsus, that the Rocke was Chriſt. The Fathers iudgement, concerning the Keyes, giuen to all the Apoſtles, is ſet downe before. Sea more, Auſtin. de doct. li. 1. ca. 18. Firmilian, epiſt. 75. inter. epiſt. Cyprian. Chryſoſt. in Act. ca. 1. & in Galat. ca 1. And touching the exhortation of Chriſt to Peter, to feed his Lambes. Cyprian. de vnitate Eccleſiae, ſaith, The Flock of Chriſt was but one, which all the Apoſtles fed with one conſent. Auguſt. de paſtoribus; They were many Apoſtles, and yet it is ſaid to one, Feed my Lambes; becauſe all good Paſtors are one, and in one, they feed, & Chriſt feedeth. Alſo de agone Chriſtiano, ca. 30. When Chriſt ſaith to Peter, Loueſt thou me? Feed my ſheepe; he ſaith the ſame to all.
Cyril ſpeaking of the place in Iohn, Chap. 21. 17. telleth vsus, that Chriſts thrice asking, Loueſt thou me? was to draw ſo many anſwers from him, according to his thrice denying of him: and the charge to feed his Lambes, was the renewing vntounto him the dignitie of Apoſtleſhip: (hee ſaith not, Headſhip;) for that by his deniall it might hauehave been thought, he had weakened it. As for the name of Head of the Church, which of the Fathers giueth it to Peter? A title too high for man, which is proper onelyonly to Ieſus Chriſt.
Gaineſaid by Popes, and others their owne men.
Eutychianus, Biſhop of Rome, in Epiſt. There is but one immoueable Foundation, one happy Rocke of Faith, confirmed by Peters mouth; Thou art Chriſt, the Sonne of the liuing God. The Interlineall Gloſſe; vponupon the Rocke, that is to ſay, vponupon Chriſt, in whom Peter beleeueth. The Common Gloſſe; Thou art Peter, but thou art ſo of me, who am the Rocke.
Lyra, Haymo, Hugo Cardinalis, Cardinal. de Aliaco, and Ferus on this place of Matthew, ſay, that Chriſt is the Rocke.
Concerning the Keyes, Anſelmus on Matth. 16. ſaith; This power was not giuen alone to Peter: but as Peter anſwered one for all; ſo in Peter he gaue his power to all.
Pope Leo 1. ſer. 3. in Aniuerſ. die aſſump. ſuae ad pontificatum, This power of the Keyes paſſed ouer to all the Apoſtles.
Gratian Decrees, D. 21. in nouo & 24. q. 2. loquitur. Saint Peter receiued no more power then the reſt of the Apoſtles.
Gerſon de poteſt. Eccleſiae conſid. 11. The Keyes were not giuen to one, but to vnitie.
Councell of Baſil: The Keyes were giuen to the Church, and not to Peter.
Hincmar, Archbiſhop of Rhemes, wrote a Booke hereof vnderunder Charles, againſt another Hincmar, Epiſcopum Laudunenſem: yea Canoniſts, and thoſe of the chiefeſt, in cap. 1. de renunciat. lib. 6. ſay, that the power of binding and looſing, in which is found all iuriſdiction of the Church, proceedeth immediately from Chriſt, and not mediately from Saint Peter. Touching Peters Office of feeding, Cuſanus Concord, lib. 2. c. 13. vponupon the place of Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17. as alſo of Chriſts charge to goe into all the world and preach, ſaith, There is found nothing ſaid to Peter, that importeth any power.
Marſilius Defenſ. Pacis part. 2. cap. 28. ſaith, That Chriſt ſpake to al the Apoſtles in Peters perſon, which manner of ſpeaking, Chriſt teſtifieth himſelfe to hauehave vſed, in that hee ſaith, What I ſay to one, I ſay to all.
Gregorie lib. 4. Epiſt. 32. denyeth Peter to bee called vniuerſall Biſhop. And it is well knowne how he oppoſed that title, as very Antichriſtian, lib. 4. Epiſt. 34. But if hee had knowne, that to Peter the whole Church had beene principally committed, that hee had beene the Prince of the Apoſtles, and Paſtor of Paſtors, he would hauehave allowed of that title, as iuſt and lawfull, and not hauehave condemned it as Antichriſtian.
Scriptures obiected anſwered.
Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter, and vponupon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell, &c.
Anſw. Here is no expreſſe word of Headſhip; neither doth this Text by conſequence proue it. For although Chriſt ſpeakes to Peter, yet he ſpeakes not of Peters perſon.
I. The words are a promiſe touching the Churches ſafety, and nothing of Peters Supremacie.
II. It ſpeakes of a Rocke, on which the Church is builded. Now the words are a Metaphor, as Bellarmine granteth. But aLib. 1. de. PP. Rom. cap. 11. Metaphor is to be interpreted, according to the nature of the thing, of which it is ſpoken: as here, of a Rocke, as of a foundation, which is to vphold that which is built vponupon it, and not to rule ouer that which is builded thereupon. So that from the name of Rocke, cannot be concluded Headſhip and Rule, for it is not proper to a foundation, in that reſpect, to rule; but to ſupport and beare vp.
III. If Chriſt here, either gaue, or promiſed to giuegive to Peter the Headſhip, and that before all the reſt of his Diſciples, Why did then afterward Iames and Iohn, Mar. 10. 35. and their Mother, Math. 20. 2. ſeeke for the chiefeſt places aboue the reſt? Yea, and why did the Apoſtles afterwards ſtriue which of them ſhould be the greateſt, Luk. 22. 24? And why had not Chriſt plainely decided this for Peter then, and told them of this his ſpeech and meaning in this place towards Peter? If Chriſt had heere intended it, ſurely, there he had not forbidden Soueraignty; but vponupon ſo ſit occaſion offered, had ſtabliſhed Headſhip vponupon Peter. It is cleare therefore, that Chriſt here meant no ſuch thing.
IV. If by Rocke be concluded Headſhip (not to vrge the Metaphor againſt it,) yet Peter is neuer the nearer his Headſhip, for he is not the Rocke.
1. The name, Peter, giueth it him not. For firſt, there Chriſt names him for more vehement affirming of that, which heeThe like ſpeech, Gen. 41. 44. would vtter for the Churches comfort. As if he had ſaid, As verily as thou art Peter, and ſo to be called, Ioh. 1. 42. Mar. 3. 16. ſo certainly will I build my Church firmely vponupon the Rocke, which thou haſt made confeſſion of, that Hell gates ſhall not preuaile againſt it. So that Chriſt cals him not Peter, becauſe he ſhould be the Rocke; but that vponupon the remembrance of his name, he might thinke vponupon the Churches ſafe ſtabilitie (as vponupon a Rocke,) againſt all the powers of darkneſſe.
2. Petros is the interpretation of Cephas, Ioh. 1. 42. and therfore he being by Chriſt, (who ſpake Syriak) called Cephas, as he is ſometime ſo named by S. Paul, 1. Cor. 1. 15.) moſt commonly he was called Peter, not alluding to Peter in this place of Matthew; but for that Cephas was Syriak, and Petros Greeke, and ſo was he named Peter, becauſe of the generalitie of the Greeke tongue, rather then Cephas.
3. Petros ſignifieth in Greeke generally, a ſtone, and not a Rocke of foundation. And therefore though hee be called Peter, yet is he not therefore the Rocke, but a Stone in the Lords building, a precious ſtone. For the twelue Apoſtles are twelue foundations, Reu. 21. 14. and eueryevery foundation is a precious ſtone, verſe 19. 20. And if Peter bee reckoned the firſt in order, he is there a laſper. A ſtone he is, and ſo are all the other Apoſtles fundamentall ſtones, and likewiſe are the elect ſtones too, 1. Pet. 2. 5. though not ſuch ſtones. But the chiefe corner ſtone is Chriſt, 1. Pet. 2. 6. and here in Mathew is hee the Rocke, and not Peter; Petros is a ſtone. Now the Church is here built on a Rocke, not on a ſtone, except on the Corner-ſtoue, and on the twelue precious Stones, but not on one ſtone, but vponupon one Rocke.
4. If Chriſt, by calling him Petros, had meant him to be Petra: then had Petros bin an appellatiue, the ſame with Rock, and not a proper name, as here it is vſed. For no Demonſtratiue goeth before it. But if Chriſt had ſaid, Thou art that Petros, and vponupon that Rock will I build my Church, and ſo made the word appellatiue, this Text had been ſomewhat to the purpoſe: but here is no ſuch Demonſtratiue, Petros being a proper name.
5. He cannot be the Rocke, becauſe that Chriſt cals him Peter: for he was Peter before, Mar. 3. 16. and is now Peter, when Chriſt called him ſo; for he ſaith, Thou art Peter. He was not now at this time the Rocke, as Bellarmine doth confeſſe.Lib. 1. cap. 10. …. Rom. PP. Therefore it is not his name that makes him the Rocke, becauſe here hee is Peter, but yet not the Rocke, by Bellarmines grant.
II. Theſe words, vponupon this Rocke, will not make Peter the Rocke. 1. The Scripture no where makes man the Rocke of Gods Church. Dauid called God his Rocke, 2. Sam. 22. 2, 32. Pſal. 18. 2. Saint Paul ſaith, Chriſt is the Rocke, 1. Cor. 10. 4. 2. The word Peter and Rocke, in the Originall, yea, and in their Tranſlation, are diſtinguiſhed in gender and termination, yea, and in ſignification, as before is noted, and the one a Noune appellatiue, and the other a proper name. 3. The preſent alteration of the ſpeech from Peters perſon, to ſome other thing, will not admit him to be the Rocke. For it is not ſaid (as it in plaineneſſe of ſpeech ſhould be, if indeed the Rocke had been Peter,) Thou art Peter, and vponupon thee will I build my Church: but, Thou art Peter, and vponupon this Rocke, &c. Where the Pronoune this, hath Relation to ſome other thing then to Peter, euen to his confeſſion, that Ieſus was Chriſt the Sonne of the liuing God, vponupon which Rocke Chriſt would build his Church. For no where the Scriptures thus vary in a Relatiue, if the intendment of the ſpeech be to one and the ſame perſon: neither doe any thus vſe to ſpeake, nor may wee thinke that Ieſus Chriſt would hauehave thus doubtfully ſpoken, if he had purpoſed to hauehave had Peter held to be the Rocke.
III. The words following, I will build my Church, remoueth Peter from being the Rocke.
Firſt, Church here is to be vnderſtood the whole Church militant and Triumphant. How can Peter be the Rocke on which it is built? Could he be the Rocke of the Church Triumphant, when he was here militant? Or can he be the Rocke now of the Militant, and he a Saint in Heauen Triumphant? Or how the Rocke of both, then and now, as hee that is the Rocke muſt be? For on the Rocke is the Church built, not a part of it, but the whole, and not for a time, but euen for euer. For will all, or any part of the Church once built vponupon the Rocke, bee remoued off from the Rocke? Or will the Rocke ceaſe to bee the bearer vp of the Church? Then either is Peter now, the Rocke, or he neuer was the Rocke at all. But how can he now be, whoſe bodie is turned to duſt? Can his Soule be the Rocke? As for a Rocke by ſucceſſion, it is but a fantaſie. Chriſt ſpeakes of an euerlaſting ſuſtaining Rocke, and but of one Rocke, and not of one Rocke after another, dying and decaying.
Secondly, the Church and this Rocke are two things: for Chriſt ſaith he will build his Church vponupon this Rocke. Now Peter was one, in, and of the Church: here, a principall member militant; and now, a Saint triumphant. He muſt therefore bee one, built with the Church, vponupon the Rocke: he cannot therefore himſelfe be the Rocke; for ſo himſelfe ſhould be built vponupon himſelfe.
Thirdly, Chriſt ſpeakes of his Church, and ſaith, my Church. Had he no Church, but that which was built vponupon Peter? Had not he at this very time, when he ſpake theſe words, a Church? Was Zachary and Elizabeth, Iohn Baptiſt, Ioſeph and Mary, Simeon and Annah, the other Apoſtles, the 70. Diſciples, and many others following him, not of his Church? If they were, were they built on Peter? Did they know Peter to be the Rock? Or were they of the Church, & not built as yet vponupon the Rock? For as yet Peter was not the Rocke, by Bellarmines confeſſion.
Fourthly, Chriſt here made himſelfe a Builder; I will build (ſaith he) my Church. He built while he did liue, by his Word and Spirit. But did his Word and Spirit gather any to Peter? Did his Word and Spirit build his followers vponupon Peter? Chriſt built his Church by his Apoſtles: for they are ſaid to build: and Paul ſpeaketh of himſelfe, as of a wiſe Maſter-builder, 1. Cor. 3. 10. But vponupon what did they build? Euen vponupon Chriſt alone, 1. Cor. 3. 11. Epheſ. 2. 20. in whom all the building is knit together, verſe 21. They built not vponupon Peter; nor he on himſelfe, but vponupon Chriſt, 1. Pet. 2. 4, 5, 6. Did any of the Apoſtles preach Peter? Paul ſaith, he preached not men, but God, Gal. 1. 10. Or did Peter preach himſelfe to be the Rocke? If he was the Rocke, why did they not preach him? If they did not, who can beleeue it?
Fiftly, if Peter now was made the Rock, and Head, as Aquinas, Turrecremata, and many other Papiſts auerre, though Bellarmine ſaith it was but here promiſed; how came this Rocke, by and by after in Mathew, to be called Satan, Mat. 16. 23? Is it like that Chriſt would call the Rock, on which he will ſo firmely build his Church, Satan? Laſtly, if it were granted, that Chriſt built his Church on Peter; yet is it not ſpoken excluſiuely, as on him alone, ſecluding the reſt of the Apoſtles; for elſewhere he conioynes them with him, Ioh. 23. 23. Epheſ. 20. 20. Reu. 21. 14. Mat. 28. 19.
IV. Theſe words, and the gates of Hell ſhall not preuaile againſt it, will ouerthrow Peters being the Rocke. For this Rock beareth vp ſo powerfully the Church, that Hell gates ſhall not preuaile againſt it. Whence followeth, that this Rocke muſt needs be ſtronger then Satans power and policies. But what power can that be, but the power of Chriſt, and of God? For who but God can reſiſt Hell gates? Therefore from all the words of this Text it is cleare, that Peter cannot by it bee the Head of the Church, nor the Rocke on which it is built: and yet this place is one of the chiefeſt for his Headſhip.
The words in the next verſe 19. I will giuegive thee the Keyes, are anſwered before.
Ioh. 21. 15, 17. Ieſus ſaid to Simon Peter, Simon, ſonne of Ionas, loueſt thou me more then theſe? Feed my Lambes.
Anſw. 1. Here are no expreſſe words of Headſhip, neither can any ſuch thing be concluded out of this place, by any well framed argument: and yet this is the very principall place which they alledge to vphold it.
Secondly, Chriſt here calleth him not Peter, (for that name is vttered by the Euangeliſt,) but onelyonly Simon the ſonne of Ionas, as thereby preuenting the conceit of Headſhip, which our Aduerſaries dreame of from the name of Peter. Which our Sauiour here mentioneth not, nor the name Cephas, becauſe of his fearfull deniall of him ſo lately, as now therefore vnworthy of that name.
Thirdly, he is here queſtioned concerning his louelove, which he ſo much boaſted of before Chriſts taking, and ſoone after ſeemed to hauehave loſt, by forſwearing Chriſt. And three times hee is asked, to remember him of his three times deniall of Chriſt, it being now alſo the third time of Chriſts appearing to them, verſe 14. Alſo the queſtion is with a compariſon, Loueſt thou me more then theſe? What if hee meant it of the 153. great Fiſhes, with the Ship, Nets, and other things therein? for he leaped into the Sea, hearing of Chriſt, and caſt off all reſpect to the ſhip and Fiſhes, verſe 7. till Chriſt willed them to bring of the fiſhes, ver. 10. 11. And therefore might Chriſt demand thereupon this queſtion: neither is any thing in the Text againſt this. For Chriſt was by the fiſhes, and the queſtion was after dinner. But conceiue it of the reſt of the Apoſtles, as it is commonly vnderſtood; for Peter had preferred his owne louelove before all of them before, Mat. 26. 33. Luk. 22. 23. Which here Chriſt, by thus propounding the queſtion, remembers him of, as a check to his former conceitedneſſe, ſeeing his louelove appeared leſſe then theirs. Chriſt here queſtions Peters louelove, hee here in a ſort checks his former boaſting. What of all this? Ergo, hee is the Head of the Church, and Prince of Paſtors. Logically concluded!
Fourthly, Peters anſwer was now affirmatiue, concerning his louelove ſimply. He durſt not boaſt now comparatiuely, as before. Neither did he anſwer to the compariſon, but appealed to Chriſts knowledge of his louelove towards him. And therefore at the other two times, Chriſt leaueth out the compariſon. Which ſhewes that Peter knew his former folly, and now diſcerned no ſuperioritie of louelove in himſelfe aboue the reſt; neither that Chriſt purpoſed to commend it aboue the louelove of the other, and ſo to preferie him aboue them, but to make Peter more humble, and better to know himſelfe, as the whole carriage of the buſineſſe ſheweth.
Fiftly, the words, Feede my Lambes, will not afford Peter any Headſhip.
I. In generall, this charge was as to re-inſtall him againe into his Apoſtleſhip, that it might not bee doubted of, and that by a threefold command. Firſt, becauſe of a threefold deniall of Chriſt, by which hee had deſerued to loſe his Apoſtleſhip. And ſecondly, for that Chriſt would hauehave him very diligently carefull in performing the charge of feeding: being thus mercifully admitted into the grace of the Apoſtleſhip againe, but not aduanced into any higher dignitie and command ouer other Apoſtles.
Againe, this charge followeth not as a reward of his louelove, which had formerly ſo failed: but as a true declaration of his louelove now againe profeſſed towards Chriſt. For what great expreſſion of louelove had it been to Chriſt, for Peter to hauehave accepted of a Supremacie aboue all the reſt, which before they had fooliſhly contended for? Luk. 22. 24.
II. The word feede maketh not heere for any Headſhip.
For firſt, it was a duty of his Office already receiued, for an Apoſtle to feed, and not an impoſing of a new Dignitie.
Secondly, it is a common charge to all the Apoſtles, Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15. Yea, to other Biſhops and Elders, Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2.
Thirdly, the words in the Greeke, which Chriſt vſeth here,foreign. are vſed to expreſſe ſuch feeding, as is required of ordinarie Teachers, as the former quoted places ſhew; and doe not here imply any ſupreme Authoritie, or extraordinarie kinde of feeding from other of the Apoſtles.
Fourthly, the word in our Engliſh to feede, and the Greekeforeign. words, are taken from ſuch as feed beaſts of the earth. The one is vſed for ſuch as keepe Swine. Mat. 8. 34. Mar. 5. 14. but thisforeign. our Aduerſaries make no vſe of, to pearke vp Peters regencie. And yet Chriſt in the Euangeliſts language vſeth this word twice, in the firſt queſtion, and in the laſt verſes 15. 17. and theforeign other word but once; perhaps becauſe of ſuch as are fed, that is, outwardly called, there will bee two Swine or Goats, for one true Sheepe. This laſt word is taken from Shepheards, feeding their flockes; as the word here applyed to Lambes doth ſhew. So in 1. Cor. 9. 7. 1. Pet. 5. 2. This they take great hold on, to helpe forward their conceit. Becauſe this word is applyed not onelyonly to Teachers, as in this place, and in Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. and the word Paſtor alſo, taken from Shepheards, applyed to Teachers, Mat. 9. 36. and 26. 31. but the ſame is ſpoken alſo of Kings, Math. 2. 6. Reuel. 19. 15. So it is to teach, and to beare rule ouer others. Therefore they will hence conclude, that Peter had heere a Princely Supremacie beſtowed vponupon him.
But firſt the word which is vſed twice, both before and after,foreign doth limit the ſignification of this, which is but once vſed.
Secondly, a word of double ſignification is to be vnderſtood according to the ſubiect matter ſpoken of: and that ſignification taken, which is fitteſt to the thing in hand.
As this word, here tranſlated feede, ſpoken of a King, is toforeign gouerne and rule, as a King, and not to teach as a Paſtor. But being ſpoken of a ſpirituall Paſtor, as here it is, it cannot bee ſo meant of ruling as a King: but is to be vnderſtood of feeding, as a ſpirituall Paſtor, by Doctrine and life, and not of ruling. Or if of ruling too, yet it is but of ſuch a rule as befitteth a Paſtor, and not of the Rule which is in a King. For our Aduerſaries can no more conclude from the double ſignification of the word, that Peter is to teach, as an Apoſtle and Biſhop, and to rula alſo as a King, the Church: then it may bee concluded of a King, that he is not onelyonly to rule as a King, but alſo to teach the Church as a Biſhop. This they will not allow to Kings, whom they hold Lay-men: and yet the Argument from the double ſignification, is as good for the one, as for the other.
Thirdly, our Sauiour Chriſt tooke on himſelfe no ſuch Rule, as they would giuegive vntounto Peter, to lay it vponupon their proud Pope. Though the name of Gouernour be giuen to Chriſt, as of rule and power alſo, Mat. 2. 6. and 28. 18. yet he would not be made a King, Ioh. 6. 15. though he was a King, Ioh. 1. 49. nor would meddle in diuiding the inheritance, Luk. 12. nor allow Soueraignty in his Diſciples, Luke 22. 24, 25, 26. Muſt here then a word of double ſignification bee written aduantageouſly to lift vp Peter to a new Dignity, which Chriſt neuer allowed of in them, nor euer tooke vponupon himſelfe, as the Pope doth? As his Father ſent him, Iohn 20. ſo ſent he not Peter onelyonly, but them, that is, all the reſt of the Apoſtles. But that was not to beare rule ouer Nations in outward State, as the Pope doth, as much as hee can: but to teach and preach to all the world: this did Chriſt. And his ſeruants may not thinke to be aboue their Maſter, or to be ſent from him, otherwiſe then his Father ſent him.
Fourthly, Saint Peter, who exhorteth the Elders to feede, vſeth the ſame word, in 1. Pet. 5. 2. that is here in this Text; and yet by and by forbids them to be Lords ouer Gods Heritage. If this word had noted any ſuch ſoueraignty, hee would not hauehave giuen it to Inferiours; nor hauehave immediately forbidden Dominion thereupon, if there had beene any ſuch Rule included: for that had beene to giuegive, and by and by to take away againe.
Fiftly, the word and Title of Paſtor, whence the other word…. to feede commeth, is the fourth degree vnderunder an Apoſtle: for Apoſtles, Prophets, and Euangeliſts are before Paſtors. Now, a Paſtor, or Biſhop, or Elder, is to feede, Acts 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Therefore here is not impoſed a Superioritie vponupon Peter, but a Dutie common to other of inferiour ranke. This word feede therefore will helpe them nothing for the Supremacie.
The word my, pulleth downe Peter from Soueraignty. For firſt, Peters charge is to ſeed, not his owne, but Chriſts ſheepe. So then, Peter is not a Lord, but a Seruant-Shepheard, to feede the chiefe Shepheards flocke, as Peter himſelfe calleth Chriſt, who knew no other chiefe Shepheardſhip, either in himſelfe, or in any other, but in Chriſt, 1. Pet. 5. 3. And wee reade how the flocke is called Gods, Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. but no where Peters. As alſo by Chriſt himſelfe wee are taught, that there is but one fold, and one Shepheard of that fold, to wit, but one generall Shepheard, and that is he himſelfe, Ioh. 10. 11, 14, 16. and not Peter, and that by Peters owne acknowledgement in the forequoted place, 1. Pet. 5. 3.
The word Lambes, or Sheepe conſidered with the reſt of the words, and as it is commonly taken, wipes away Peters Supremacie.
For firſt, the words are not ſpoken vniuerſally, Feede all my Lambes, as if hee had been charged with all of them. For this had beene a charge: Firſt, which hee could neuer hauehave performed, ſecondly, which he neuer did attempt to performe. Now, God neuer impoſed any impoſſible charge vponupon him; and Peter would not hauehave been found faithleſſe. But it is ſpoken indefinitely, to feed here, and there, whom he could, and where hee could, at any time. Therefore hee is not here the vniuerſall Biſhop.
Secondly, Lambes or Sheepe are not Apoſtles, Prophets, Euangeliſts, and Paſtors. Theſe are neuer ſo called, but in relation to Ieſus Chriſt onelyonly, Mat. 26. 31. and neuer in reference to any man. But if vnderunder theſe Lambes and Sheepe bee comprehended all, and eueryevery one of the Church and flocke of Chriſt, then by their account, all the Apoſtles, and the reſt, muſt bee ſheepe, and Peter their Shepheard, and ſo a Shepheard ouer ſhepheards. Which vaine conceit, without proofe, who can giuegive credit vntounto? And yet Bellarmine makes a difference betweene Lambes and Sheepe. The Lambes forſooth, muſt bee the Laitie; and the Sheepe, the Apoſtles: when as the words are vſed indifferently, Math. 10. 16. Luk. 10. 3. Act. 8. 32. Andforeign Chriſt, though he vſe two words, yet doth not make any ſuch difference. For the two words to feede, are applyed alſo indifferently to either of them. So that taking ſheepe for the Apoſtles, Peter muſt not onelyonly rule as they would hauehave it, but alſo teach the Apoſtles: when Apoſtles are all immediately from Chriſt, and taught of Chriſt, and by his holy Spirit, Galat. 1. 1, 12. and needed no inſtruction from man in the worke of the Miniſterie, Math. 10. 20. Ioh. 14. 26. and 16. 13. Thus we ſee, there is not the leaſt footing in any word of this Text, for Peters Supremacie aboue all other, on which yet they ſettle it. But if here Peters Supremacie could bee proued, yet whats this to the Pope? He feeds not by preaching Chriſts Lambes: but rules, or rather rauages like a roaring Lyon, ouer Chriſts Sheepe: hee is like a Lambe, but ſpeakes like the Dragon, Reuel. 13.
Laſtly, that here is no Headſhip giuen to Peter, it appeareth in verſe 17. where it is ſaid, that, vponupon Chriſts third time queſtioning him, he was grieued. Now, may wee reaſonably ſuppoſe, if Peter had conceiued of Chriſts words, as Popes doe, that a Supremacie was therein beſtowed vponupon him, that hee would hauehave beene grieued? Doe men grieue at high preferments offered, eſpecially hauing contended for the ſame, as the Apoſtles had done? Who ſeeth not therefore, that Peter perceiued no ſuch glorious preferment, nor high Dignitie, out of any thing that Chriſt here ſpoke, as our Aduerſaries doe? From all this it is cleere, that Peter from hence hath no Headſhip aboue others.