Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 11
XI. That St. Peter was not ordained by Chriſt the firſt Head, or Chief among the Apoſtles; and that among the Twelve, none was greater, or leſſer than other.
Anſwer.
WE are now come to the great Point, which is the ſupport of the whole Roman Cauſe. But he neither knows our Opinion about it, nor their own: or elſe dares not own what it is. We believe Peter was the firſt Apoſtle, and that he was a Chief, though not the chief Apoſtle. For there were others who were eminent (that is, Chiefs) upon ſome account or other, as well as himſelf, 2 Cor. XI. 5. XII 2. But what he means by a firſt Head or Chief, neither we, nor thoſe of his own Religion know, unleſs there were ſecondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apoſtles, one over another. This is ſtrange language, which none underſtands. Peter was firſt in Order, Place, Precedence, but not in Power, Authority, and Juriſdiction; in theſe, none was greater or leſſer than another. Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible, but moſt agreeable thereunto.
For ſo the Text ſaith, X. Matth. 2.X. Matth. 2. and we needed not his Obſervation to inform us, That all the Evangeliſts, when they mention the Apoſtles which Chriſt choſe, put Peter firſt: Which doth not ſignifie he was the worthieſt of them all; that no way appears; but that he and Andrew his Brother were firſt called, we expreſly read, and poſſibly he might be the Elder of the Two. But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthineſs, it doth not prove his Authority over the reſt, (as he is pleaſed to improve this Obſervation, in the Concluſion of his Note upon this place) for tho he had ſome eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others, they gave him no Superiority in Power; but in that, every one of them was his equal. What follows upon this Text, is ſo frivolous and childiſh a reaſoning, it ought to be deſpiſed.
Next he betakes himſelf to the Rock, XVI. Matth. 18.mentioned XVI. Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again, (but they harden their hearts againſt it), is not ſpoken of Peter, as this man moſt impudently, contrary to his own Bible, makes the words ſound, but of the Faith which Peter confeſſed; as the general current of Eccleſiaſtical Writers expound it. But if we ſhould by the Rock underſtand Peter, it inſinuates no Supremacy, much leſs clearly inſinuates it. For none but ſuch a man as this, to whom the Bell clinks juſt as he thinks, would have thought of that, at the reading of the word Rock; but rather of Firmneſs, Stability, or Solidity; which the Word plainly enough imports, but nothing of Authority. Our Bleſſed Lord himſelf is not called a Rock or Stone, with reſpect to his being the Soveraign and Abſolute Paſtor of his Church, but becauſe of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God. Next to thoſe who by Rock underſtand, as I ſaid, the Faith which Peter confeſſed, the greateſt number of Ancient Expoſitors underſtand thereby Chriſt himſelf. Unto whom this man hath the face to ſay, theſe words do not agree, becauſe he ſpeaks of the time to come, I will build; as if Chriſt were not always, what he ever was, being the ſame to day, yeſterday, and for ever. It is a burning ſhame, as we ſpeak, that ſuch men as this ſhould take upon them to be inſtructors, and to write Books, which have nothing in them but trifling obſervations, and falſe allegations For after all, ſhould we grant Peter to be the Rock, it will not exclude the reſt of the Apoſtles from being ſo, as much as he; for the Church was built upon them all, on the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, II. Epheſ. 20. And accordingly St. John had repreſented to him, not One alone, but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jeruſalem, i. e. the Church of Chriſt; which had in them the names of the twelve Apoſtles of the Lord, XXI. Rev. 14.
The next place XVIII. Matth. 18.XVIII. Matth. 18. is ſo plain a promiſe to all the Apoſtles, that it is impudence to reſtrain it to St. Peter, or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the reſt; eſpecially if it be obſerved, that when this Promiſe was fulfilled, they were all equally partakers of it; when our Saviour breathed on them, and ſaid unto them, (mark that, he breathed on them all, and ſaid not to Peter alone, but them, i. e. the Apoſtles), Receive ye the Holy Ghoſt; Whoſe ſoever ſins ye retain, XX. John 22, 23.they are retained, &c. XX. John 22, 23.
Now he falls a Reaſoning again (for, alas expreſs Texts fail him) but it amounts to no more than this, That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place, but gave him another name. I am ſorry for his ignorance, that he did not know, or for his diſhoneſty, that he would not conſider; this was become his name as much as Simon, before this time; for at their firſt meeting, Chriſt gave him this name of Peter, I. John 43.
1 Cor. III. 4.22.From that which follows, 1 Cor. III. 4, 22. there is a wonderful fetch. For as before he argues Peter's Supremacy from his being named firſt, ſo now he argues it from his being named laſt; whereas in his firſt obſervation it was an argument of Judas being the unworthieſt, becauſe named laſt. When he thinks again, perhaps he will prove his Supremacy, becauſe in II. Gal. 9. he is named neither firſt nor laſt, but in the middle, between James and John. And according to his wiſe note, That the Apoſtle aſcends from thoſe he would have eſteemed leſſer, to thoſe whom he would have eſteemed greater, we muſt look upon Apollos as greater than Paul, becauſe he aſcends here from Paul to him, and ſo to Peter. Whither will not the Folly of theſe men lead them?
XXII. Luke 31, 32.His Reaſoning (for we are not to expect Expreſs Texts, whatſoever he vainly b…ags) upon the next place, XXII. Luke. 31, 32. is ſtill more ſtrange. For who ever heard that to ſtrengthen or confirm his brethren, can be nothing but to practice and exerciſe his greatneſs over them? This Greatneſs of his runs ſo in their heads, that they fancy they ſee it every where, even where there is not a ſhadow of it: For none before him ſure ever thought, that to ſtrengthen others, is an exerciſe of Greatneſs, but rather of Goodneſs: It implies indeed, that he who eſtabliſhes another, is in that greater than he; but it doth not follow he is ſo in any thing elſe; nor doth it imply any thing of Juriſdiction over others: Tho if it did, they are not the Apoſtles who are here intended to be ſtrengthned (for they were as ſtrong as himſelf) but the Converted Jews, who might be in the ſame danger wherein he had been. And therefore our Lord bids him learn to pity their weakneſs, by the remembrance of his own; and to eſtabliſh them in that Faith which he had denied.
From hence he leads us back to v. 26.XXII. Luke 26. of the ſame Chapter; and from the vain ambition which was in the Apoſtles, who ſtrove which of them ſhould be accounted the greateſt, (v. 24.) concludes, That really ſome of them was greater than others, viz. in Power and Authority over the reſt; or elſe he concludes nothing: But this vanity our Saviour checks; and therefore it is far from truth, that one of them was accounted greater than another, even by Chriſt himſelf. No ſuch matter; he only ſhows them, that if in any quality one excelled another, it ſhould make him more humble and ſubſervient to his Brethren, not ſwell him, and make him perk up above them. And thus Theophylact underſtands it not of any Superiority in Power, but in other things. For the occaſion of their contention, Who ſhould be eſteemed greateſt; he thinks was this; That there being an enquiry among them which of them ſhould be ſo wicked as to betray their Maſter, (v. 23.) and one perhaps ſaying, Thou art likely to be the man; and another, No, it will be thy ſelf; They proceed from hence to ſay, I am better than you, and I am greater; and ſuch like things: Which our Saviour expreſſes in the following words, The Kings of the Gentiles exerciſe Lordſhip over them, &c. but it ſhall not be ſo among you, &c Which is a pretty plain denial of any Authority they were to have one over another. And indeed, when he comes to ſpeak of Power in the following Verſes, v. 29, 30. he ſaith indifferently to them all, I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, &c. It was divided among them; and none had an higher Throne given him than his fellows.
We are at laſt come to the main prop of this Cauſe, which is as weak as all the reſt,XXI. Joh. 15, 16, 17. XXI. John 15, 16, 17. For who told him that the word uſed the ſecond time by our Saviour, which we Tranſlate Feed †foreign., muſt interpret the other two, which are uſed at firſt and laſt? Why may not they, being uſed twice, rather interpret that, which is uſed but once? And how doth he prove, that it ſignifies to govern and rule, rather than feed? Or if it do ſignifie Government, what's this to his governing the Apoſtles, who had as much Power to Feed and Rule both Lambs and Sheep as himſelf? And thus the Ancients underſtood this to be ſpoken unto all the Apoſtles, as well as unto him; and even his own Companions, who have more Wit, and leſs Impudence, by Lambs and Sheep, underſtand, not the Apoſtles, but weaker and ſtronger Chriſtians. I will mention only Menochius, whoſe words are theſe, in his Notes upon this place; By Lambs, he ſignifies, as the very name ſh…ws, thoſe that were newly converted to the Faith, and were weaker in the Faith; whoſe number was very great, when the Apoſtles began to preach, and therefore needed greater care; for which cauſe Chriſt repeats this twice, FEED MY LAMBS, and but once, FEED MY SHEEP, who are thoſe that are ſtronger in the Faith, and therefore needed leſs pains to preſerve them. This is ſpoken like a man of ſound ſenſe: And with the like Judgment and Integrity he interprets the reſt directly contrary to the ſilly Reaſonings of this Trifler; who ſays, Peter loved Chriſt more than the reſt, and therefore it follows neceſſarily, he received more Power to feed, than all the reſt did. This is more than Peter himſelf durſt ſay, That he loved Chriſt more than the reſt. No, ſays Menochius, He dares not anſwer, that he loved more than others, but only that he loved; for his fall had made him more modeſt. He had preferred himſelf to others, when he ſaid XXVI. Matth. 33. Though all be offended becauſe of thee, yet will I never be offended; and after this he fell more fouly than others; therefore now he ſpeaks of himſelf what he thinks to be true, but he doth not prefer himſelf before others, whoſe hearts he did not ſee.
Now I thought we had done; when like a man out of his wits, or rather poſſeſſed, he flies to the Devil to help him at a dead lift; and thus argues (for expreſs Scriptures have failed him long ago), from XII.XII Matt. 24. Matth. 24. Satan therefore hath a kingdom, whereof he is chief. And what then? One would think he ſhould have concluded, Therefore ſo hath our Lord Chriſt. But he was afraid of that; for he ſaw it would not do his buſineſs, but ours rather, who own Chriſt for the only Head of the Church. He tells us therefore (as if he had found it in the Text), There is but one viſible Head, even in Hell, as there is one viſible Head of the Church Triumphant in Heaven; and therefore why not a viſible Head on earth? He might as well have ask'd, Why not one Ʋniverſal M…narch over all the Earth? Which is as reaſonable from theſe Principles, as one viſible Head of the Church. But to anſwer his queſtion plainly; There is no one viſible Head here, becauſe Chriſt the Head of the Church, both Triumphant and Militant, hath ordered it otherwiſe. Having placed, ſaith St. Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 28. in the Church, firſt Apoſtles; not Peter, or any one alone over the reſt, but the Apopoſtles were left by Chriſt, the Supreme Power in the Church.
Here I cannot but conclude, as that great and good Man Dr. Jackſon *L. III Chap …doth, upon ſuch an occaſion: Reader, Conſult with thy own heart, and give ſentence, as in the ſight of God; and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation; and of the Foundation (which is this Supremacy of Peter) by the wretched Arguments whereby they ſupport it.
For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer, their Arguments ſtand thus; David was made Head of the Heathen (XVIII. Pſal. 43.) therefore Peter was made Head of the Church. Inſtead of the Fathers ſhall be thy Children, whom thou mayſt make Princes in all lands (XLV. Pſal. 16.) therefore Peter ruled over all the reſt as a Prince. Simon he ſirnamed Peter (III. Mark 16.) therefore he had authority over all, becauſe named firſt. The ſame is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of precedence, which muſt be granted to one or other, in a Body where all are equal. Finally, Chriſt's kingdom ſhall have no end (I. Luke 33.) therefore St. Peter muſt reign for ever in his Succeſſors. St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefeſt Apoſtles, (2 Corinth. XI. 5.) therefore what? common Reaſon would have concluded, therefore there were more chief Apoſtles beſides Peter; and St. Paul was not inferior to the greateſt of them, not to Peter himſelf. Theſe are his Scripture-Arguments for their Supremacy.
And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter, which is not ſaid of other Apoſtles. Particularly St. Chryſoſtom (who ſays no ſuch thing of Peter, as he makes him, in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew) expreſly ſays, St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship, Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth. and frequently calls him, as well as Peter, Prince of the Apoſtles: and calls them all the Paſtors and Rectors of the whole World, in his 2d Hom. upon Titus. And, to be ſhort, the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew (commonly aſcribed to St. Chryſoſt.) calls all Biſhops the Vicars of Chriſt. Hom 17. Finally, there is no Title ſo great, which is not given to others as well as Peter, by ancient Writers; even the Title of Biſhop of Biſhops, the name of Pope, Holineſs, Bleſſed, and ſuch like.