A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 2
THE SECOND QVESTION, WHETHER PETER were the chiefe, and Prince of the Apostles, and assigned by Christ to bee head of the Church.
The Papists.
THis our aduersaries doe stiffelie maintaine, that he was not only head of the error 37 Church, but of the Apostles also. Bellarmi. lib. 1. de pontif. cap. 11. And the Rhemists doubt not to call him the chiefe and Prince of the Apostles. 1. Corinth. 9. ver. 5.
1 Wee will omitte manie of their waightie arguments, as out of these and such like places: I hauehave prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not fayle: cast forth thy net into the deepe, I will make thee a Fisher of men: Peter payed toll for Christ and himselfe: Peter drew the net to the land full of great fish: Peter onelyonly drew out his sword in the defence of Christ. Ergo Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and head of the Church. ex concil. Basilien Fox. pag. 673.
Such other goodlie arguments our Rhemists doe make: Peter did excommunicate Ananias and Sapphira: he healed the sicke by his shadow. Ergo he was the head of the Church. Annot. 5. Acts se. 5.8. Againe, Peters person was garded with foure quaternions of Souldiours, Act. 12.4. the Church prayed for him. Ibid. sect. 4. Paul nameth Cephas, 1. Cor. 9.5. Ergo hee was chiefe of the Apostles. Are not here goodlie arguments thinke you? To these reasons I neede make no other answere, then that, which our learned countrie man dooth in his Annotations. You must, saith he, bring better arguments or else children will laugh you to scorne. Fulk. Annot. Act. 5. sect. 5. Let vsus see therefore if they hauehave any better arguments.
2 They take that to be a maine inuincible place for them, Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and vponupon this rocke will I builde my Church. Ergo the Church is built vponupon Peter.
To make this argument the more strong, they set vnderunder it diuerse props: First, why did Christ giuegive Peter this name more then to any other of the Apostles, to call him Peter, of Petra a Rocke, but to shew that hee was appointed to be the foundation of the Church? Bellarmine cap. 17. Wee answer, Christ hereby signified, that Peter should bee a principall piller of his Church, as the rest of the Apostles, Ephes. 2. He chaunged also the names of some other Apostles, as Iames and Iohn were called Boanerges, the sonnes of thunder, Mark. 3. Therefore this was no such preeminence to Peter, neither is it true that Peter was almost called by no other name, for he is oftē in the Gospel after this called by his old name Simon, Mat. 16.17. & 17, 25. Fulk. Annot. in Ioh. 1. sec. 7. Secondly, againe (saith Bellarmine) the text is aedificabo, I will build my Church: but if Christ be here taken for the rocke, his Church was built alreadie, for many beleeued in him. But Peter was not made the foundation of his Church, till afterward after his resurrection, and therefore hee saith, I will build.
Wee answere. First, it is a corrupt glosse, to say the Church of Christ was not builded, till after the resurrection: for seeing that many beleeued before in Christ, and made a Church, either they must graunt, that the Church was without a foundation, or else, that the foundation was changed from Christ to Peter. Secondlie, it is taken therefore for the enlarging and increasing of the Church of GOD. It followeth not, because Christ saith, I will build, and his Church was begun to bee built alreadie, that therefore another kinde of building must bee excogitate: no more then, because Christ gaue his spirite to the Apostles Matth. 10.1. and againe Iohn 20.22. and yet biddeth them stay at Ierusalem till they should receiue the holie Ghost Acts. 1.7. that therefore they should looke for another holy Ghost, or as though they had not receiued the holy Ghost before. But as the sending of the holy Ghost is meant, for the increase and more plentifull measure thereof, so is the building of the Church here taken for the increase of the building.
Tract vlt in Iohann.Wee yet further answere with Augustine: super hanc petram, quam confessus es, aedificabo ecclesiam: vppon this rocke, which thou hast confessed, will I build my Church: so that in this place is meant not Peter to bee the rocke, but either Christ, whome he confessed, or his saith: whereby he confessed him, which commeth all to one effect. There is no great difference, whether wee say, the Church is builded vppon Christ, or faith is the foundation of the Church, for faith is an apprehension of Christ: but of the person of Peter it can no more bee vnderstoode then of the rest of the Apostles, who in some sence are called the foundation of the Church, namely in respect of their holy Apostolick doctrine vponupon the which the Church is built. Ephes. 2.20.
Bellarmine and the Iesuites denie not, but here is relation also to the faith of Peter, but faith considered in his person. We answere: if they meane Peters particular faith, which was a proper adiunct to himselfe, the vniuersall Church cannot be built vponupon that faith, seeing when Peter dyed, his faith also, as a proper accident to his person, ceased: if they vnderstand that generall faith, whereby Peter in the name of all the rest made this confession: then they all are as well made pillars and foundations of the Church, as he, because it was their generall confession. Fulk. annot. in 16. Matth. sect. 8.
3 Another place, which our aduersaries mightely vrge, are those words which follow verse 19. I will giuegive vntounto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth, shalbe bound in Heauen: Ergo: Peter had especiall iurisdiction giuen him more then any of the rest. Bellarmine cap. 12.
Wee answere. First, as Peter confessed in the name of all the rest, so this power is geuen him not onelie for the rest (as the Rhemists falslie charge vsus, that we make Peter a proctor for others) but together with the rest: Peters person must be excluded: for immediately after he deserued for a certaine slip of his person to bee called Sathan: it were an vnfit match, the same person at the same time to be honoured with the glorious title of the rock of Christ, and to sustaine so great a rebuke as to bee called Sathan. Secondlie, here is no more promised to Peter then vntounto all the rest of the Apostles: Matth. 18.18. They likewise hauehave authoritie giuen them to binde and loose, and it is performed to them all alike. Iohn 20.23.
2 By the keyes here cannot be vnderstoode that large iurisdiction which the Papists dreame of, as not onelyonly the authoritie and chaire of doctrine, iudgement, knoweledge, discretion betweene true and false doctrine, all which we graunt together with Peter to hauehave been giuen to al the Apostles besides. But say they, hereby is signified the height of gouernement, the power of making lawes, of calling Councels and confirming them, of ordeyning Bishops and Pastors, finally to dispense the goods of the Church spirituall and temporall: all this is added without ground, neither had either Peter or any of the Apostles this ample authoritie, no nor the Bishops of Rome for many hundred yeares after Christ. For this plenarie power of the keyes, when they signifie, a soueraigne and chiefe, and surpassing power, are so onelyonly giuen vntounto Christ, and to no mortall creature: He is saide to hauehave the keye of Dauid, who openeth and no man shutteth, who shutteth, and no man openeth. Apocalip. 3.7. Fulk. Annot. 16. Matth. sect. 13.
Lastly, I will oppose the iudgement of the Fathers of the Church, who alleadge out of Augustine, that Peter receiued the keyes for the whole Church, and out of Ambrose, that when Christ said to Peter, pasce oues, the blessed Apostle toke not charge of them alone, saith he, but together with vsus, and we together with him. Fax. pag. 675.
4 Other arguments they alleadge for the primacie and preeminence of Peter, as Matthew 10. Hee is named in the first place. Bellarmine cap. 18. Wee answere, this mought bee, because Peter was the most auncient in yeeres, or one of the first that was called. But howsoeuer it was, it is no great matter: for this order is not alwaie kept, as Galath. 2. Paul nameth Iames first; Iames, Cephas, Iohn, saith hee, verse 9. the Iesuits best shift is heere to denie the text, saying; it should bee read, Cephas, Iames Iohn: vnlesse Iames bee named first, because he was Bishop of Ierusalem: Marke I pray you, Ergo at Ierusalem Peter was not before Iames, but next vntounto him, therfore not prince of the Apostles. Bellarm. cap. 18.
Againe, say they, Peter standeth vp in the election of Matthias. Acts 1. preacheth the first Sermon, Acts 2. Acts. 15. Peter speaketh first. Wee answere to the first: Wee denie not a primacie of order to hauehave been in Peter: but it followeth not, that hee which speaketh first, or giueth the first voyce, should bee the head and commaunder of the rest to the second: wee also graunt that Peter in zeale, promptnes and forwardnes, was not behinde any of the Apostles, but euen with the first: for in him was that saying of Christ verified vppon the woman. Shee loued much, because much was forgiuen her, Luk 7: So was it with Peter, to whome Christ forgaue much, and therefore hee loued much. To the third wee answere, that by the Iesuites owne confession, Iames, who was (as they say) Bishoppe of Ierusalem, had the primacie there: how then can they now giuegive it to Peter?
The Protestants.
THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles, as to bee called the head and Prince of them: but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed, and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any subiection of each to other, but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together: we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture, and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same.
1 Ephes. 2.20. Apocalips. 21.14. The Church is said to bee built vponupon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles, they all founded the Church.
Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine, there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest,Bellarm. cap. 11. for they all were first planters of Churches, they all preached the Gospell by reuelation: But in respect of gouernement, they were not equall: they had chiefe authoritie committed to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ: But Peter, as ordinarie pastor.
Wee answere. First, by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe authoritie as Apostles, but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship: but as they were Apostles they were equall (saith the Iesuite:) Ergo there could be no superioritie, for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church.
2 To preach the Gospell, and to hauehave iurisdiction of gouernement, do both belong to the power of the keyes: but the keyes were equallie committed to all: Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne. That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vntounto them, wee hauehave proued before out of Matth. 18.18.
2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pastor at Ierusalem, and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas, that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule, Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Peter was to giuegive primacie to the ordinarie pastor there.
If they answere, that Rome was then the chiefe citie, and therefore Peter being Bishop of Rome was to hauehave the preeminence: To this we replie: that Ierusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place, which was chosen by the Lord himselfe, to be the chiefe citie of his Church: But Rome through the tyrannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie, not by the election of God.
But Bellarmine answereth, that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church, and so of Ierusalem too. We answere, he now saith lesse for Peter, then if hee called him, as he was, the Apostle of the whole world: for it was more to be an Apostle thā a Bishop. Diuers were called in the Apostles times, episcopi, ouerseers, or Bishops, that were not Apostles, as the pastors of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. Wherefore now hee hath saide iust nothing: in seeking to aduance Peter, hee hath disgraced him, in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship, to the chaire of a Bishop.
3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul, for they ioyned right handes of fellowship: and this allotment was made betweene them, that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision, Galath. 2.9. Ergo.
Bellarmine answereth. First, they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell: but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning. Wee answere: yea, but the text saith, that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles, but hee had the chiefe Apostleship. Now to the Apostleship belongeth, not onelyonly the function of preaching, but the whole vse of the keyes, and power of iurisdiction. Ergo: in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe Apostleship.
But let any man say, that this was a humane compact amongst themselues, and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement: the text sheweth, that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution. For when they sawe, saith Saint Paul, that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee, verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent, that distribution, which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted.
Further saith the Iesuite, the diuision was not so made, but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles. Wee answeare: wee graunt it, and for Paule to preache to the Iewes, yet that distinction remayned still, that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision, Paule of the vncircumcision.
Againe saith hee: but Peter had the more excellent lotte, for Christ himselfe first preached to the Iewes. Wee answere, wee denie not, but that hee had the first lotte in order: for to the Iewes was the Gospell first offered: but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte: the Church of the Iewes, now decaying, and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome. But howsoeuer it was, it cannot bee denied, but that Paule was chiefe towards the Gentiles: And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right hauehave deriued their authoritie from S. Paul, then from Peter: Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See: seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both.
Further, out of the same place, Galath. 2.11. an other thing commeth to bee obserued: that Peter was rebuked of Paule, and in such sort, that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them▪ for he doth it to his face openlie, before all men, and at Antioch, in Peters owne Bishopricke, as they say, can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter?
Cap. 15.Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere, that the Pope may bee rebuked of an inferior, and ought to take it patiently, if it be done in zeale and louelove. Aunswere: First, wee doe not simplie thus conclude, because Paul reprehended Peter, therefore he was not his superior, but because of the manner, as we shewed: it was done in such sorte, so plainely, so openly, without any submission or crauing of pardon, that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them. Secondly, although they seeme heere to graunt, that the Pope may be rebuked, yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe, which saith, that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell, no mortall man may presume to reprooue his faultes, part. 1. distin. 4. cap. Si Papa. Fulk. Annot. in Gala. 2. sect. 8.
4 Lastlie, what reason was there, why Christ should giuegive the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest? Christ was no acceptor of persons: if hee had bene, Iohn should hauehave bene preferred, whom he loued most. If deserts be weighed, I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes: Nay I thinke the wisedome of the Spirit, foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter, hath so disposed, that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest, should be euidentlie set forth in Scripture. We will brieflie runne them ouer, not to derogate from the blessed memorie of so excellent an Apostle; but a litle to stay and bridle the preposterous zeale of our aduersaries, who doe ascribe more vntounto him, then euer he would hauehave challenged to himselfe.
To let passe the smaller slippes and scapes of this Apostle, as his rashnesse in aduenturing beyond his strength, to walke vppon the Sea, Matth. 14. Secondlie, his vnaduised speech in the Mountaine, Math. 17. let vsus make three Tabernacles: thirdlie, his ignorance, Matth. 19. In saying to Christ, how often shall I forgiue my brother? till seuen times? Fourthlie, his impatiencie, as in drawing out his sworde and cutting off Malchus eare. Fifthlie, his timorousnesse in flying from Christ at his apprehension. Sixtlie, his curiositie, Iohn 21. In asking concerning Iohn, what shall this man doe? To let passe these as common infirmities: There are fower great faultes, which Peter fell into, much amplified, and stoode vppon by the fathers.
1 He de…orted our Sauiour from his passion with these words: Master fauour thy selfe, Math. 16. and was therefore called Sathan, an aduersarie to the death of Christ, and so to the redemption of man. Augustine chargeth him with great forgetfulnes, hauing made so notable a confession of Christ before, and noteth him for some sparkes of distrust and infidelitie. Ille Petrus, qui iam eum confessus fuerat filium dei, timuit, ne sicut filius hominis moreretur, in Psal. 138. The same Peter (sayth he) which a little before had confessed him to be the Sonne of God, feared lest he should dye and perish as a man.
2 In promising rashly not to denye Christ, yea vntounto death, whereas Christ had foretold him of his fall before, Augustine noteth great presumption: Petrus ex egregio praesumptore creber negator effectus. Epist. 120. cap. 14. Peter of a great presumer, is become a desperate denyer.
3 The third great sinne was committed by Peter in denying of Christ, and that thrice, yea with an oath, at the instance of a mayden, and in a very short while, before the cocke crewe twise, Mark. 14.72. The Iesuite answereth, that this was no hinderance to Peters primacie, but a furtherance and a confirmation of it. But whether it were a let to his primacie or not, let all men iudge, seeing it had been sufficient to hauehave hindered his saluation and destroyed his faith, without the great merciemercy of God.
Let vsus heare Augustines iudgement of Peters fall. Some man may excuse Peter, and say, that he did nothing, but as Christ forewarned him. What then (sayth he) if Peter therefore did not amisse, because his fall was foretold by Christ: Rectè etiam fecit Iudas, qui tradidit dominum, quia & hoc praedixerat dominus: Exposit. in Psal. 140.then Iudas did well too (sayth he) in betraying of Christ, for this also Christ shewed afore? But some agayne may say: he denyed not Christ, for hee sayd hee knewe not the man: Quasi vero (sayth he) qui hominem Christum negat, Tractat. in Iohann. 66.non Christum neget: as though hee that denyeth the man Christ, doth not flatly denye Christ. Christ also taketh away all doubts (saith he) when he thus said to Peter, the cock shall not crowe till thou hast denyed me thrice: he sayth not, till thou hast denyed the man, but me. Agayne, Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos: Peter himselfe doth confute his maintayners and defenders: Agnouit planè peccatum suum infirmitas Petri: Peters owne conscience gaue him, that hee had sinned, for he went out and wept bitterly. But if by this meanes his primacie was confirmed, he had occasion to reioyce, and not to weepe: Yea he wept bitterly, his sinne was very great: how then dare one of your sect say with a blasphemous mouth, Petrus non fidem Christi, sed Christum salua fide negauit: Copus. vide Iuell. p. 665 defens. apol.Peter denyed not the faith of Christ, but his faith remayning safe and sound he denyed Christ? The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peters fall, no nor Peter himselfe, that wept full sore, as these men presume to doe.
4 The last fault noted in Peter was that, for the which he is reproued of Paul Act. 2. Tush (saith Bellarmine) it was a very small and light offence. Yea, was it so smal a fault to constrayne the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes? for this was the poynt, as S. Paul writeth, Galath. 2.14. And Augustine saith, Petrus non obiurgatus a Paulo fuit, quòd seruabat consuetudinem Iudaeorum, in qua natus & educatus fuit, sed quòd eam gentibus imponere volebat. Exposit. ad Galat. Peter was not rebuked of Paule, because hee kept the custome of the Iewes, wherein hee was brought vp, but because he would lay it vponupon the Gentiles. Was this leuissimum peccatum, a small transgression? S. Paule should greatly hauehave been to blame, for rebuking Peter openly, and so plainly for so small an offence, and should hauehave done agaynst his owne rule, Galath. 6.1. But Peter did it of a good mind (sayth Bellarmine. Bellarm. cap. 28.) Yea did? then he was worthie to be excused, not worthie of blame, as S. Paule writeth. He might also doe it ignorantly and vnwittingly (saith hee.) How can that be? seeing he was one that made the decree, Act. 15: That no yoke should be layd vponupon the Gentiles: other then there expressed, and now contrarie to that decree, hee constrayneth the Gentiles, Iudaizare, to play the Iewes. These things doe not hang together.
I will now conclude out of Augustine, as hee alleageth out of Cyprian: Nec Petrus, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter, vt diceret se primatum tenere, De baptis. 2.2. Howsoeuer it was, Peter, when Paule reasoned thus with him, did not stand vponupon his pantofles, & chalenge any primacie to himselfe. But it is very like, if there had been any such primacie in Peter of power and iurisdiction, (a primacie of order wee graunt, as Cyprian in that place calleth Peter, primum, the first) that this sharpe reprehension of Paul should either hauehave been spared, or els not done in that vehement manner.