Run from Rome, Chapter 6
CHAP. 6.
Of the two former points of the foure.
THE firſt of the foure points to be diſcuſſed is this: In the words rehearſed, Ioh. 21. 15. a ſingular office is appointed.
That Bellarmine ſpeakes of a ſingular Office, the words themſelues ſhew: that hee muſt needs bee vnderſtood of appointing ſuch an office, not of diſpoſing of one already appointed, it is manifeſt: as well becauſe there was no office yet ordained, but that which was common to Peter with the reſt of the Apoſtles; and therefore not ſingular: as alſo for that it will not ſerue Bellarmines turne to ſpeake of an office common to all the Apoſtles, ſince hee endeauors to ſettle ſuch an office vponupon Peter, as was proper and peculiar to him, and ſuch as no other Apoſtle euer had. This may farther appeare by another place in Bellarmine, where he ſaith, that that very thing is really giuen Iohn 21. 15. which was promiſed, Mat 16. 19. I will giuegive thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen: and as he there ſaith, giuen to the ſame Simon, to whom Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 14. Sect. Ac primum & cap. 12. Sect Et propterea.before it was promiſed: hee ſaith, that the keyes were promiſed Math. 16. 19. and …eliuered Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17. Thus hauehave we the firſt point in Bellarmines propoſition, now let vsus try the truth of it.
For our parts we vtterly reiect it as falſe, becauſe wee are out of doubt, it cannot any way bee ſoundly proued. And we are the rather ſo perſwaded becauſe Bellarmine hath not once attempted to proue it; although hee could not choſe but ſee, that there was neceſſity of prouing it: for it is not ſo plaine and manifeſt in it ſelfe, that it needs no proofe; and the concluſion drawne out of it is an Article of their faith; yea ſuch an article, as, like Atlas, beareth the waight of the whole body of their faith. Beſides, Bellarmine knew well enough that we deny it to be true. For hee brings Luthers words to that purpoſe. Martin Luther (ſaith Bellarmine in his booke de poteſtate Papae) affirmes that by the word Feed, Iohn 21. there is no new power giuen, but only the duty of louing Bellar. de Rom. Pont. la. ca. 15. Sect. Iam vero.and teaching enioyned Peter, who was made an Apoſtle before.
Neither doth the text it ſelfe, nor any other place of Scripture (for ought they ſay, or we ſee) afford vsus any proofe thereof. If there bee any thing in the text for their reliefe, it is in that Peter is commanded to feed. But this charge doth not ſo much as imply the appointing of an office: becauſe feeding is many times enioyned, where there is no ſingular office ordained, but the executing of an office commanded, which had before been appointed. So the Apoſtle Peter, 1. Peter 5. 2. chargeth th… were already 1 Pet. 5. 2.Miniſters, to feed the flicke of God. And the Apoſtle Paul, Acts 20. 28. giues the like charge to the Elders or Miniſters of Act. 10. 28.Epheſus, Take heed to your ſelues, and to all the flocke, to feed the Church of God. And this Dr. Reynolds well obſerued, Dr. Reynolds againſt …art, Chap. 3. diuiſ. 2.and vrged againſt Hart, You ſay true, wee might therefore with good reaſon refuſe this propoſition, till it be proued. But I will deale more kindly with Bellarmine, and ſhew that Luther truely affirmed, there was no new office erected by thoſe words, but the execution of one formerly appointed, enioyned.
If this feeding be the teaching, for which all the Apoſtles had commiſſion, Mark. 16 15. Goe ye into all the world, and Mark. 16. 15.preach the Gospell to eueryevery creature: Iohn 20. 23. Whoſe ſinnes ſoeuer ye remit, they are remitted to them: then is it not the erecting of a new office: for this was at our Sauiours third appearing to his Diſciples, Iohn 20. 13. that, at his firſt, Ioh. 20. Ioh. 20. 19. Bellarm. de pont. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 12. Sect. Dices &c.19. 20. when (as Bellarmine affirmeth) they had power giuen them both of iudiſdiction to gouerne, and of order to execute their ſacrificing Prieſthood. And it had beene a thing not beſeeming our Sauiours wiſdome, to giuegive a new Commiſſion when there was no need, nor occaſion of ſo doing. Yea, to ſay the truth, it had beene altogether in vaine, becauſe the former being as ſufficient and in force, there could be no place for this later.
But this feeding, Ioh. 21. 15. is the teaching, for which they had commiſſion Mark. 16. 15. Ioh. 20. 23. For wee finde no other kinde of feeding but this one practiſed by the Apoſtles in the new Teſtament, namely, feeding by way of reuealing. This appeareth touching the Scriptures, Bellarm. de Co… cil. authorit lib 2. cap. 12. Sect. Obſeruandum, &c. and Sect. Di…untur Counc. Trent. Seſſ. 4 decretde Canon. ſcripturatum.2. Tim. 4. 15. The Scriptures were giuen by inſpiration. 2. Pet. 1. 21. Holy men of God ſpake as they were moued by the holy Ghoſt: as Bellarmine alſo confeſſeth: The Scripture is the word of God immediatly reuealed. The holy writers had immediate reuelation, and writ the words of God. As for traditions, which the church of Rome makes a ſecond part of the diuine teſtimony, or word of God, by their owne confeſſion, they are alſo by reuelation, for ſo ſaith the Councell of Trent: Traditions were either receiued by the Apostles, from the mouth of our Sauiour, or deliuered by themſelues, the holy Ghoſt enditing them.
Indeed this feeding, Ioh. 21. 15. is nothing elſe but an exhortation or charge for the performance of that duty, which was enioyned in that Commiſſion, Mark. 16. 15. That it was ſuch an exhortation, the manner of deliuering the words ſheweth, which is, by repeating the ſame thing three ſeuerall times. For this courſe is very fit to make an impreſſion of a duty commanded, no way beſeeming the giuing of a Commiſſion Beſides, it anſwereth to Peters denying of his Maſter thrice: as Cyril noteth in Ioh. Becauſe Cyril ſupra Ioh. lib. 12. cap. 64.he denied him thrice at his paſſion, therefore there is a threefold confeſſion of louelove required of him. A threefold confeſſion (ſaith S. Auſtin) anſwereth to a threefold negation, that the tongue may Aug. Tract. in Ioh. 123.expreſſe as much louelove, as it did feare. Adde hereunto, that our Lord calls for the performance of this duty, as a proofe of Peters louelove to him, wherein hee had failed more then the reſt, becauſe he had made more proteſtation of it then the reſt. For thus lies the reaſon. If thou louelove me as thou haſt profeſſed thou doeſt, ſhew thy louelove by the performing of the duty of feeding. But what proofe had it beene of Peters louelove to our Sauiour, to become the viſible Monarch of the whole Church? Well might the giuing of ſuch an office argue our Sauiours louelove to Peter, but the taking it vponupon him, could not teſtifie any great louelove of his to our Sauiour. For, who would hauehave refuſed ſuch an offer? The burthen of teaching was laid vponupon the other Apoſtles, as well as vponupon him; the honour of the Supremacy (if this were true) was appropriated to him; yea, the reſt of the Apoſtles, who before were equall to him, were now made inferiour and ſubiect to him.
Laſtly, in giuing a commiſſion, the authority of him that giues is ordinarily expreſſed, alwaies implyed. Mat. 28. 18, 19. All power is giuen to me in heauen and earth: Goe therefore and teach all nations, Ioh. 20. 21, 22, 23. As my father ſent me, ſo ſend I you, receiue the holy Ghoſt: whoſe ſins, &c. But here, although (as they ſay) it is the onelyonly place that ſpeaks of this commiſſion, there is no authority, either expreſſed or implyed: onelyonly as Cyrill ſaith, It was a duty of louelove to feed, as it had beene formerly a proofe of feare to deny. What elſe then can this Feeding be, but the teaching, which was enioyned all the Apoſtles at our Sauiours firſt appearing to them? Whereupon I may ſafely conclude, that the word neither neceſſarily, nor in any likelihood of reaſon importeth, the erection of any new office in the Church.
Let vsus now proceed to debate the ſecond point: yet with this memorandum, that although it be neuer ſo plainly proued, yet Bellarmines propoſition of a new office appointed, Ioh. 21. 15. is falſe, becauſe the firſt point contained in it, of a ſingular office here ordained, is neither true nor likely. The thing now to be diſcuſſed, is this:
Feeding Chriſts ſheepe, Ioh. 21. 15. is teaching.
This ſentence is plainly deliuered by Bellarmine, in that propoſition, as he that looks vponupon it cannot chooſe but ſee, and proued alſo by two reaſons: the former; that, Reaſonable ſheepe are fed by teaching: the latter; that The Lord ſaith by Ieremy, I will giuegive you Paſtors according to my heart, which Ier. 3. 15.ſhall feed you with knowledge and vnderſtanding. But theſe proofes might hauehave been ſpared; for we acknowledge, that Feeding is Teaching.
But for the fuller diſcuſsing of this matter, wee muſt remember, that Bellarmine, as we ſaw, chap. 4. numb. 9. telleth vsus: Teaching is double: by reuealing, or propounding things reuealed. Wee ſay, that the teaching here ſpoken of, is by reuelation, not by propounding matters already reuealed, as they would hauehave it. But if they will hauehave vsus yeeld to it, they muſt proue it, and not take it for granted, as Bellarmine doth. For, without it be proued, as I ſignified chap. 6. numb. 6. his propoſition cannot be true. It is therfore as eaſie and reaſonable for vsus to refuſe his argument, grounded vponupon that, which we deny, as for him to affirme that he cannot proue.
Yet, that we may deale more kindly with him, then he doth with vsus, wee will giuegive him a reaſon of our anſwer: which is, that, None of the Apoſtles did euer vſe any other kind of teaching, then reuealing. If they deny this, let them ſhew, that any Apoſtle did euer informe the Church, that, This or that booke was ſcripture: that, this or that tradition was by diuine authority: that, this or that place, had this or that ſenſe. And that this information of theirs, was not by way of reuelation: that is, of immediate inſpiration and motion from God: wherby they were freed from all errour. If they cannot doe this, as I am out of doubt they cannot, it muſt needs be granted, that they taught onelyonly by reuelation, not otherwiſe.
They will perhaps obiect, Act. 15. 7. but in vaine: For the Apoſtles doe not there expound any place of Scripture formerly written, or propound matters already reuealed by God: but by the immediate inſpiration of the holy Ghoſt, reſolue and enioyne what was to be done in that caſe. So that their determination was a law then firſt giuen by way of reuelation from God, not by way of interpreting and propounding what the Lord had formerly deliuered. For it is manifeſt, that the Lord hath no where taught in the old Teſtament (& the new was not then written) that the Gentiles conuerted to the faith, were to abſtain from ſtrangled things, and from blood: to the forbidding wherof, the holy Ghoſt directed them immediately, vponupon that occaſion, for that time. From which after a time he freed them by the like direction and reuelation giuen to the Apoſtle S. Paul, and by him to the Church, Rom. 14. And that this decree of the Apoſtles was made by reuelation and inſpiration of the holy Ghoſt, *De Rom. Pons. lib. 4. cap. 25. Sect. Reſponde… ad primum.Bellarmine himſelfe grants.
Yea, the Apoſtles in that ſame place ſeeme to take a contrary courſe to that: which, if they had expounded the former Scriptures, or propounded things formerly deliuered, they muſt hauehave followed. For as it appeareth by debating of the point by Iames and Peter, the old teſtament abſolutely Act. 15.freed the Gentiles conuerted from the ceremoniall law. Why tempt ye God, (ſaith Peter, Verſ. 10.) to lay a yoake on the Diſciples neckes, which neither our fathers nor wee were able to beare? Yet the Apoſtles by this decree of theirs, bind them to part of that law, by enioyning them, Verſ. 20. 29. To obſtaine from blood, and that that is ſtrangled. Which they might not hauehave done, if they had propounded matters already reſolued of, and not followed the immediate reuelation and direction of the holy Ghoſt. To this I may adde, the manner of this charge, giuen by the Apoſtles, which is by inſpiration from the holy Ghoſt, whoſe authority in this caſe they alledge, It ſeemed good to the holy Ghoſt: not, thus ſaith Moſes, Dauid, or the Lord by this or that Prophet. Therfore in that Councel, the Apoſtles did reueale what was to be done, not propound what formerly had beene reuealed. And yet this is the onelyonly place in all the new Teſtament, wherein there is any ſhew of Feeding by expounding and propounding, otherwiſe then by reuelation.